Backbenches Tonight
Guests:
- ACT MP Sir Roger Douglas
- Green Party MP Catherine Delahunty
- Labour MP Iain Lees-Galloway
- National MP David Bennett.
Topics:
- The smacking referendum is back and voters say a smack as part of good parental correction should not be a criminal offence—so, what now?
- Should gay and lesbian couples be allowed to adopt children?
9.10 pm on TVNZ 7 or live at the Backbencher on Molesworth Street.
1 Total TweetBacks: (Tweet this post)
Tags: Backbenches![](http://a1.twimg.com/profile_images/337973904/Colleen_and_Daddy_in_Sac_normal.jpg" rel="image){kind=small}
August 26th, 2009 at 11:03 am
Hilariously try to redefine assault until voters realise smacks were always a criminal offence.
Yes.
August 26th, 2009 at 11:16 am
and no discussion of ‘the subject that dare not say its’ name’..?
..gouging..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 26th, 2009 at 11:21 am
Yep, a smack has always been an assault.
Good grief, gays adopting children do people not realise that gay parents would do their best to turn the children gay.
Yes of course gays should be allowed to adopt.
August 26th, 2009 at 11:23 am
Having watched only 2-3 programmes since being on Sky 97 I have to say that I am very disappointed in the programme.
I think the leafy climates of Wellington with all its gatherings of unrepresentatve New Zealanders has put me off this programme.
I am sure Delahunty and Galloway-Lees will get great receptions while Bennett will face the hectoring of Labour-Green supporters.As far as Douglas is concerned, he’s a has been for a philosophy that is out of favour.
Back Benches would be far better doing Town Hall types of meetings around various parts of New Zealand.
I also think the presenter could be changed as well.
August 26th, 2009 at 11:43 am
Is Delahunty gonna sing? Oh please let it be
August 26th, 2009 at 11:47 am
High-five, Hori.
I know it’s been done to death, but a more sane referendum question that would provide more of a mandate could be:
“Should New Zealanders charged with assaulting their children have an available legal defence of reasonable force for the purposes of correction?”
That at least puts the question of S59 in the correct context – of someone already charged with assaulting their child. And it leaves little ambiguity in terms of people’s positions.
August 26th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
That’s fair.
That isn’t. Consider how this argument applied when you contrast the defence in the former section 59, with the defence in the current section 61:
Surgical operations
Every one is protected from criminal responsibility for performing with reasonable care and skill any surgical operation upon any person for his benefit, if the performance of the operation was reasonable, having regard to the patient’s state at the time and to all the circumstances of the case.
By arguing that smacking was a crime under the old law, you are effectively arguing that surgery is a crime now. It’s not.
August 26th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
grumpy – what about tranny adoption?
August 26th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Isn’t surgery generally done with explicit consent?
August 26th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Disappointing, I’m sure if they had David Garrett after a doz, discussing gay adoption, the place would be packed, out onto the street even.
August 26th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
I am sure it would be packed out racer, it would be full of pinko’s and Green’s screaming every time Garrett spoke.
The thing that you refuse to admit is that Garrett’s views are shared by the majority of people in New Zealand.
August 26th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
1%…
(Channeling redbaiter are we now?)
August 26th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Wonderful — homosexuals being able to adopt children. Does anyone beside me think that homosexuality is wrong? Like if homosexuality is deviant behaviour, which is what we used to think, and which I still think, then why put vulnerable children into the hands of deviants?
Personally I am concerned about the children and believe this idea would put vulnerable kids at incredibly unnecessary risk of abuse.
August 26th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Ryan Sproull Yes that is how it should have been worded, the government should have got in first with a referendum using that wording.
It would have made the majority stop and bloody think before they voted to be able to assault their children by having a defence.
Dime, trannies adopting, why not.
August 26th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
OR Sky 97
August 26th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
Being left handed is by definition deviant (as in it deviates from the norm). Can’t have children being raised by deviants now can we?
August 26th, 2009 at 9:43 pm
Bruv, I’m watching the show now … and it IS full of pinkos and greens screaming every time Garrett (and Sir Rog) opens his mouth…except Farrar, of course, who is doing his best to his behind the bar as far away as possible from the camera.
And WTF is it with Delahunty’s moustache? Heaven forbid Paul Henry should ever have her on his show.
[DPF: Umm I wasn't even there]
August 27th, 2009 at 3:54 am
Mea Culpa times 2:
(1) I meant Bennett of course, not Garrett
(2) Apologies, DPF, I thought I caught a glimpse of you in one shot.
August 27th, 2009 at 6:00 am
I only saw the end where they were given a chance to say their appeal on some issue. Catherine delahunty looks at the camera and says “be sure to support my bill….tropical timbers……” That’s how the “Greens” win votes (and they know it).
August 28th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
National MP David Bennett. spoilt his ballot paper Awwwwwwwwwwwww!!