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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Get it?

By the way estimates are 83% of the country thinks your way of thinking is rubbish. GET IT YET?

I don’t think that smacking should be illegal. 83% of the country thinks my way of thinking is rubbish?

No actually- living God’s way isn’t oppressive at all.

Forcing people to live in accordance with your religion is oppressive.

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.

You could well be quoting an Ayatollah.

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.

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.

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.

Sharia law encompasses those 10 pretty completely.

Scott, you can’t use the state to force people to follow your religion.

” 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?

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.

Ryan — I actually think the number of people who think homosexuality is wrong is a lot higher than many may give credit for.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Ryan they also apparently think it is a “lifestyle choice”

Oh, like Islam. Or World of Warcraft.

Normal, common-sense people think homosexuality should be outlawed?

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!

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!

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.

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.

Sarkozy,

Note that you consider it a distinction on the same curve.

“should murder as part of bad parenting be a criminal offence in NZ?”

in fact, I suspect you needn’t bother

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?

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…

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.

”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)

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.