Boscawen Smacking Bill drawn
I have had confirmed that the bill drawn from the ballot is John Boscawen’s bill to amend Section 59 in line with the Borrows amendment.
I would hope that both Labour and National would vote for this bill to go to select committee. The public have shown they are not happy with the current law, and the Boscawen/Borrows bill/amendment is a pragmatic option that would rule out the problems of the old law, but remove the rather silly differentiation between “correction” and “good parenting” and “preventing disruptive behaviour”.
The Government did not want this as an issue while it concentrates on the recession and economic issues, but private members bills are not subject to Government timetable, and the House has just two options at first reading- to vote it down despite the referendum result, or to vote for it to go to select committee and let the select committee consider how well the current law is working, and whether the Boscawen bill would be an improvement.
ACT are having a run of good luck with the VSM Bill and now this Bill. Good on them.
As I said, I hope Labour will back the bill to select committee also. That would not be turning their backs on the law they voted for. It is not about going back to the old law. It is about whether the amendments in the Boscawen bill are worth considering – and they are.
A copy of the Bill is here in word format.
UPDATE: To my surprise National will not even be supporting the bill at first reading. I thing this is a pretty huge mistake, and one they may regret over time.
August 26th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
A good opportunity to re-address this. And maybe let everyone lay their cards on the table through the select committee process. That could be interesting.
August 26th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Haha good stuff. Oh the irony…
JK, perhaps time to start listening to the public…
August 26th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
If this does go to SC it will be an interesting test.
The EFB[A] SC process (which was my first experienec of fronting up for a submission) was a complete and utter sham. The outcome was predetermined and public & professional input was simply ignored.
Will National allow the same butchery of our democratic process?
August 26th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Heh, Murphy’s law strikes again.
August 26th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
is this rigged???
August 26th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Larry Baldock won’t like this. He wants to bring back hitting kids with implements such as wooden spoons and rulers.
This Bill will split the spankers.
August 26th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
“Umm, Prime Minister, you know how you didn’t want the Anti Smacking issue raised in the house again……. well……… ummmm………”
It would appear that parliament may not be obliged to hold to the result of a referendum, but karma, on the other hand, has it’s own agenda!
August 26th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
ha-ha-ha-ha!!!!!!!!!
Love it how when your down,theres always someone or way coming down the track thats going to knock the living shit out of just because it can.
YEP-support this bill
August 26th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Oh now that’s irony for you.
I can understand why John Key didn’t want to reopen the smacking debate … it’s a Green Party hobby-horse which caused enough muck-throwing for the last Government, why buy into that fight and get dirty again if you can (hopefully) hose it down long enough for the public’s attention to be distracted away to the next issue, whatever that might be.
But now he’s not going to be able to just close his eyes and dismiss the 87% of the electorate who voted against Sue Bradford’s ideology. But at least now he can deflect a fair bit of the muck towards John Boscawen, and potentially present his coalition partner with a good win at the same time.
John Key just might be a very lucky man.
August 26th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
An Act of God? To use a phrase from the insurance industries lexicon
August 26th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
I’ve just read the Bill, and it is simple, provides clarity, and allows a legal basis which removes the requirement for state authorities to make a ‘judgement call’ as to if it is in the public interest to prosecute. It also safeguards the rights of the parent when the parent is required to act in the best interests of the child.
There is the peace of mind you were after Mr Key.
August 26th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
virtualmark, you may not yet have noticed but he has a habit of making his own luck.
August 26th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Ha ha, Neville Keys worst nightmare.
[DPF: Why? I see it as a opportunity]
August 26th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Oh dear will it… you mean there are people out there with differing views? We have obviously not yet arrived at socialist nirvana!
August 26th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
You’re not sounding very encouraging David.
the govt sounds too busy to be concerned.
But at least, in this case anyway, labour as opposition, can’t force policy.
Why John key is sposed to be on the opposite spectrum yet supporting this flawed law is very unconcerting.
He must be in a minority in his govt and caucus.
August 26th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Well, well, well well … what a dag, eh?
Of all the bills to be drawn, it has to be this one, just when little Smilin’ John thought he had got away with parking the issue by calling for ‘reports’ and doing ‘reviews’.
He should have said the other day: the people want change, I’m not sure what, they are not convinced that they aren’t and won’t be carted off to the police station if they are reported for lightly smacking their children, and they won’t be subject to intrusion by CYFS, but we will work out something that accommodates the will of the majority who voted.
That’s the opportunity he missed on Monday. Now the debates is going to have to be gone through all over again. Annette King was right this morning on Hosking’s radio show: she said she felt we hadn’t heard the last of it. You bet.
August 26th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Is the ballot audited to make sure it is actually random, like the lotto draw is? Just saying……
I don’t think this will split the “spankers” as Toad claims. I’ve seen no evidence at all that any of the “spankers” would have been unhappy with the Borrows amendment, in fact many of them regularly say that it was their preferred change. They recognise that some (clearly stupid) people don’t understand what reasonable force is, and that it needed clarifying. They were all happy with the definition of trifling and transitory, or whatever it was.
I’m pretty sure that Larry Baldock will be happy enough to put down his wooden spoon.
August 26th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
“but remove the rather silly differentiation between “correction” and “good parenting” and “preventing disruptive behaviour” ”
Wasn’t it National that added this into the bill in the first place. As a compromise, so they could vote for it.
[DPF: No. National had the police discretion added on]
August 26th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
I meant to add, as well, that I don’t usually agree with Brian Rudman of the New Zealand Herald (by the way, two other daily newspapers in NZ have ‘Herald’ in their titles) but I reckon he was absolutely bang on the money this morning when he said that politicians have completely misread (a) the issue and (b) the import of the referendum result. The masses outside the gate are restless, Rudman said. Smilin’ John’s attempts to (a) placate the masses and (b) appease the minority who want to interefere in how I raise my kids won’t work. And Rudman is in the anti-referendum, anti-smacking camp.
Also: Sue Bradford must be loving it now. The opprobrium is shifting away from her and on to the Prime Minister.
August 26th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
This amendment looks good to me, it seems to have the legal side of things well covered.
I think there are multiple spanking views.
Some think using an implement is fine (the rod mob).
Some think spanking is an essential parenting tool.
Others think that spanking ends up happening but they would prefer not to have to resort to it.
August 26th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Is there anyone who doesn’t think this should go to select committee?
August 26th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
First hurdle getting to select committee.
I hope the members from National and the Labour Parties can have a conscious vote on this.
If and when this vote takes place it will be interesting to see how list and electorate MP’s vote on this issue.
August 26th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
And others think it’s wrong, but don’t think it should be criminal.
It could be argued that second-hand smoke does more damage to more children than violence of any degree does. Plenty of people think that smoking around your kids hurts them, but would they want children taken from their parents because of it?
August 26th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Good laugh out loud typo Delivery Boy.
August 26th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Perhaps some kind of alarm clock could be set up in the House to wake them.
August 26th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Well national would be stupid to vote it down, what an interesting turn of events.
We are going to see the health of our democracy now no doubt about it.
August 26th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
If you start introducing a consciousness test to parliament, it will cause all sorts of issues. I reckon some parties will be in real trouble. Next you’ll be wanting an intelligence test, or evidence that they understand the issues before they vote on something. God, where will it end – imagine a parliament full of people who are awake, understand the issues and are smart!!
August 26th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
DPF, Key has staunchly defended the status quo, claiming that it’s just fine, the law is working and we’ll have a few reports… when the reality is huge numbers of Kiwi parents are criminals as a result of actions (smacking) that Key himself admitted to, while with the next breath he say he won’t change this.
He had the opportunity to voluntarily do what’s right, but now he’s being forced to do it. His hands appear tied. This is an integrity loss situation as far as I am concerned.
August 26th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
The amendment allows both parents AND people acting in place of a parents to smack children. The referendum specifically reserved this right only for parents. Why is Boscawen trying to ignore the will of 88% of the population?
Also, the amendment disallows the use of weapons, tools, and other implements for the purposes of good parental correction. How dare it tell parents how to raise their children! It is just another example of the nanny state infringing on the rights of parents.
August 26th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Good on ACT for having common sense on this issue
I was disappointed however to hear Steven Joyce on the radio this morning singing the party line “we don’t know what the referendum wants us to do” !!
– FFS Steven, you of all people have far more integrity than running that pathetic line
August 26th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Ryan Sproull said: Is there anyone who doesn’t think this should go to select committee?
Yep, me. It’s essentially a regurgitation of the Chester Borrows amendment which was ultimately rejected by even his own National Party in 2007 on favour of the current law.
Been discussed, been debated, why go over it all again as long as the current law is working well. I suspect the PM will see it that way too. This is not a distraction that National needs. Key is likely spewing that it’s been drawn, and I suspect he will want to get rid of it as quickly as possible.
[DPF: National backed the Borrows amendment but did not have the numbers for it. They then agreed on the compromise. I suspect most National Mps prefer the Borrows amendment]
August 26th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
“Been discussed, been debated, why go over it all again as long as the current law is working well”
here’s a clue – because it’s not!
August 26th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
How interesting, even the prospect of democracy is enough to send Toad into panic mode.
August 26th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
>>This is not a distraction that National needs.
What the hell would the National Party have to gain by listening to somebody like you, Toad?
August 26th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Patrick Starr said: here’s a clue – because it’s not!
How many good parents have been prosecuted since the law was changed Patrick?
August 26th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Apparently the problem is that they now feel like they could be, which is an unpleasant feeling.
August 26th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Agree here, he even ordered a “review”, which is the oldest trick in the book that allows politicians to burry an issue (at an added cost to the tax payers). Any questions are immediately closed down under the guise of not biasing the review.
I will say DPF is correct in that it is an opportunity, but I am more than slightly dubious as to whether Key has retained enough of his business sense to exploit it.
August 26th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Well – an ideal opportunity for John Key to start listening. If they dont take this opportunity then theyve lost my vote at the next election, Labour wont get it, but national wont either.
we live in a DEMOCRACY and more voted against the effect of the act than voted national in last election.
August 26th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
“Apparently the problem is that they now feel like they could be, which is an unpleasant feeling.”
Fear often leads to great laws been made…..
I do love irony however, was National back in the day who enjoyed whipping this issue up so that logic long ago left the debate for many, now they are going to have to deal with their own messy fallout. The positive thing from my perspective is that it will come to show the public how much of a nutter the guy from the “Kiwi Party” aka bring back beating with instruments, really is.
“the effect of the act ”
Would say it is more the perceived effect of the act.
Also the question wasnt “was the act working”, it was a terribly worded question designed to get the answer it got. Not saying NZ dont want the ability to hit their kids, just saying that people didnt say the act isnt stopping them doing so in the recent referendum.
August 26th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
“It’s essentially a regurgitation of the Chester Borrows amendment which was ultimately rejected by even his own National Party in 2007 on favour of the current law.”
was it rejected because they couldnt get the votes to pass it?
August 26th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
“His hands appear tied”
I would bet my house Keys hands are tied….by someone.
August 26th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
A few questions for those who support this Bill.
Would subsection (2) have allowed Jimmy Mason, who punched his child in the face, to have been acquitted? After all, there were no injuries other than transitory and trifling ones, no weapon, tool, or implement was used, and a punch is probably not cruel or degrading.
If so, do you find that acceptable?
Doesn’t the phrase “Without limiting the circumstances in which the use of force may be found to be unreasonable…” mean that this legislation would provide no greater certainty for parents than the current law as to what is and is not lawful?
[DPF: It could well run foul of the law, either through not being trifling or by being cruel. Of course he disputes it was a punch.
What it will do is mean that you are no longer a criminal for giving a light correctional smack to a behind, or hand]
August 26th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Toad
“How many good parents have been prosecuted since the law was changed Patrick?”
That’s not the point – the point is how many law abiding parents have had their private lives interfered with because of this law. How many can not longer use correctional smacking because they fear for being made into a criminal?
Its clearly not working for 87.6% of the population who are tired of you 7.9% Greens interfering in our lives.
August 26th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Patrick Starr said: That’s not the point – the point is how many law abiding parents have had their private lives interfered with because of this law.
Well, how many have Patrick? Police and CYFS have always been required to investigate allegations of child abuse. It’s only after an initial investigation that they can determine whether the incident is sufficiently serious that it is in the public interest to pursue the matter further. That has always been the case, and the current law hasn’t changed it at all.
August 26th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Nothing can be certain toad, it comes down to the judge or jury, precedent, guidelines/directives etc.
I hope that most people would view hitting a child in the head while angry would be considered unacceptable. But that’s only a guess, I know there are some that think they have a right to risk brain damage.
What you are about to say is pathetic Patrick
August 26th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
A punch in the face is cruel and not a correctional smack
besides – Jimmy Mason looks like a green supporter so I would have found him guilty regardless
http://images.tvnz.co.nz/tvnz_images/news2009/crime-nz/mason_130509_1.jpg
August 26th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
“Well, how many have Patrick? ”
every parent that fears the law so much they no longer use correctional smacking.
Investigated, charged, or prosecuted does not matter- By its mere presence its interfering in peoples lives – What don’t you get about that?
August 26th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Toad you’re doing your best to shove crap uphill but let’s face it, you’re covered in poo.
You and loony Sue can take your holier than thou attitudes and butt out of our lives.
August 26th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Patrick Starr said: every parent that fears the law so much they no longer use correctional smacking
Good. That’s what it was meant to do.
[DPF: Except the Greens lied about that and kept insisting it is not an anti-smacking bill, when it clearly was.]
August 26th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
What DPF????…are you telling us the the Green party are liars?
August 26th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Christ on a bike, do we have to go over this again? 1) The police wrapped pulling the child’s ear (admitted) and punching the child in the face (denied) into the same charge. 2) The police entered no evidence of injury. I would say this strongly suggests that the punch never happened.
August 26th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
DPF: Can you confirm that this ballot cannot be rigged in anyway? This is a gift from heaven for John Key, (as if he knew it was comming, which would explain his utterances since the referendum) How lucky can he get when it comes to face-saving?? Hmmmmm….
August 26th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
This piece of legislation looks reasonable and will appease the anti-anti-smacking crowd. Hopefully at select committee we can get some common sense into this issue.
The bottomline is that parents don’t want to become criminals for smacking their children for purposes of correction. The anti-smacking legislation was a massive overreach by the Marxist radical Sue Bradford, who is a far left loon in my humble opinion.
If parents can smack their children for the purposes of correction through this legislation then I for one am completely in favour of it.
Maybe the creeping tide of radical socialism is finally going out? Thank God!
August 26th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
We were discussing this issue last night at a birthday party. I have several relations in high positions in the oil industry and one in particular was told by foreign ( US oilmen) why they believe shonkey is so keen to keep the status quo. The story goes that when the Dear One was on the throne, to curry favor with the UN and to reserve her place at the trough, when she was ruling New Zealand she signed up to several UN protocols in return for that plum post. One of these protocols dealt with this anti smacking law and the need for the state to exert pressure on their people. Most of the lunatic left that post here claim a smack is abuse, violence etc, these people are been played like a fiddle, the state doesn’t care about smacking what they do need is a law that can bring the unruly to heel should the need arise. Now the next question is why would Shonkey and the government continue backing this supposed protocol, the belief is that it may be financial blackmail, does NZ have dealings with the IMF? Also apparently this law is mandated by the UN and can only be resinded by the UN and it’s the last thing they want to do, welcome to the NWO.
As far as I’m concerned I take all this with a grain of salt but what I find strange is why does the government want this to go away so much and why did Shonkey say “it would derail parliament”, make of this as you may.
August 26th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Toad
Do you oppose the violence inflicted on children in abortion clinics?
August 26th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
My bet is at 4.30 Mr Key will announce National’s support for the first reading. He has sat back, sat back, watched , watched and he will strike when he sees maximum advantage. I suspect that time is now.
August 26th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Right idea, wrong time.
“John Key has announced he will partially support ACT MP John Boscawen’s private members bill on the anti-smacking law, which was drawn in today’s member’s ballot.
Key said this afternoon he would support the bill through to the select committee stage.”
http://www.3news.co.nz/Home/Story/tabid/209/articleID/118344/cat/525/Default.aspx
August 26th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Did Jimmy Mason have a previous wrap-sheet for anything and/or, perhaps pissed the cops off with ‘attitude’? I’ve seen even the most sublime old man tormeneted in his own house, by the coppers who were there acting on a complaint, that he had driven through an orange light. He almost decked them and landed himself in jail, they wound him up so much. Bastards!
August 26th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
In my view there was nothing wrong with the old law which had been on the books since 1908. If we no longer trust Juries to decide what is reasonable having regard to the action which resulted in the re-action , then why not dispense with them altogether. The Socialist claimed that reform was needed because a youth was horse-whipped. There is behaviour which justifies horsewhipping and so the Jury found. Good if we accept the system we can accept that.
John KEY and National appear to have been captured by the Politically appointed hard left socialists that have been placed in key position and which dominate the thoroughly unnecessary Families Commission.(Kim Workman on that Commission doesn’t even believe in punishing criminals). As DEM MUM pointed out yesterday everytime the Police visit a family they fill out a form for their data base and then pass it on to CYPS who decide whether they will also investigate or take action, whether or not there was any basis to the complaint. If another complaint is received whether malicious or baseless or not that goes on the data base until either one of these enormous agencies decide to pounce. I’m an ex cop but this is an anathema to me. From a Police point of view I don’t even regard it as ‘using discretion’. I used that plenty of times and it was unnecessary to keep any record of this nature. The present system also ensures Police/Cyps time and agonising is
kept mainly to the law abiding classes. Kohanga Reo and total immersion schools and similar institutions are unlikely to report suspected abuse to the Police, so it provides an option to chase the easy targets.
August 26th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Paul Marsden – I have to admit to being a tad sceptical, this is convenient in a couple of ways.
First it takes the current blow torch off Key and his MP’s, I believe they are getting bombarded with angry emails. Have a look at some of the comments on Key’s Facebook page!!
Second it allows flexibility to change the law later to something more acceptable if it is felt necessary, or not.
Politicians give me the shits. The annoying thing is that this politicking is seen as acceptable and even admired by some. I think this whole fiasco has been as much about democracy as anything else. I think that National and Key have been permanently damaged by their response to it and that Boscowen’s amendment is only a bandage.
I know my own opinion of Key and that of friends and colleagues (many of whom are ex Labour supporters) has dropped quite a bit. The feeling is one of disappointment and anger. Also to rub salt into the wounds I have received 3 copies – (so far, I can guarantee the others I have written to will send the same thing) – of a prepared response to my emails to various National MP’s. I would prefer they just put the press release up on their website and not insult me by sending multiple copies of the same piece of dribbling shite that Key uttered on TV the other night.
side show bob – Like you I would normally dismiss what you heard out of hand but I have been totally perplexed by the pathetic response to the referendum result. Your dinner guests may well be onto something.
August 26th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Toad (1465) said “How many good parents have been prosecuted since the law was changed Patrick?”.
Hello Mr Toad – please get out more often, ask the people you meet how they feel about this wretched business.
The number of prosecutions is the measure you insist on using to gauge the effects of the legislation, haven’t you considered the other complaints by parents ?
Democracy is tough ain’t it when it produces a result you don’t agree with.
By opposing the ‘NO’ people, you are declaring yourself an enemy of democracy – how does that fit with your
politics. No is No is No – just accept the will of the people and abide by it.
August 26th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
“Did Jimmy Mason have a previous wrap-sheet for anything and/or, perhaps pissed the cops off with ‘attitude’? ”
I don’t know about the former but the latter sounds plausible. From what I remember the police initially weren’t going to proceed with charges, Mason went to the media and the publicity may have brought it back to police attention. I suspect he brought some of it on himself. Media reports invariably described it as being “seen to be a test case for the smacking law” but sometimes reported correctly in the fine print that S59 didn’t apply – and the judge made that clear.
It was reported he admitted getting angry and hitting. It seemed to be at the lower end of the assault scale.
You have to wonder why someone takes his kids on bike riding lessons where he did in a busy part of the city.
August 26th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Toad,
What is your position on the police use of batons for the purposes of correction?
Also, how do you get an unruly child into time-out? Grabbing an adult and throwing them in a room would be assault.
August 26th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
“[DPF: It could well run foul of the law, either through not being trifling or by being cruel. Of course he disputes it was a punch.”
Doubt it could be seen as cruel and trifling is being left to be defined by the courts – which worked o so well with ‘reasonable force’ because in the end it is jurys who have to decide what is what.
If you are going to allow physcial discipline explicitly it is going to need to be allot more contrained than the burrows ammendment and more ’spelt out’ so to speak so we dont waste courts time and so ‘parents’ can have certainity with what is and is not allowed. I.e. It is only allowed to certain areas of the body (i.e. smack on the bum / hand only with open hand) and then only if its triflling etc etc. This wouldwork with section 5(3) being retained being:
Subsections (2)(a) and (2)(b) shall not apply in circumstances where the
person applying the force believes on reasonable grounds that the use of force is necessary to prevent death or serious harm to the child or another person.
I am not in favour of changes to the law – rather directions given to CYF and Police, but if there is to be I think the ammendment needs to read more like the above and not be that which is proposed unchanged.
August 26th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Check out the awesome dummy spit on No Right Turn.
August 26th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Agree with Backster’s posting at 3:57 PM. I never saw anything wrong with the old law either.
However occasionally we have to compromise and at least this bill would allow smacking for the purposes of correction.
I have always maintained that besides restoring section 59 for parents, it should also be restored to schools. I think if schools had the option of using corporal punishment then discipline at those schools would improve in no time. Such schools would be besieged by parents wanting to send their children there.
However Rome wasn’t built in a day.
August 26th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
1zb is reporting Key and National will NOT be supporting this bill to select committe stage.
August 26th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
# big bruv (4328) 5 6 Says:
August 26th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Ha ha, Neville Keys worst nightmare.
[DPF: Why? I see it as a opportunity]
An opportunity to do what?, lose the next election because he is an ignorant and arrogant wanker?
Fancy not even sending he bill to the select committee, the man is a prick.
August 26th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Jeff83, it is a poor law that has to have a rider to the police to ignore it. It is a failure of the politicians that passed the law, and that is one reason why it is so widely protested against.
The ‘no vote’ IMO is also representative of a wider sentiment, that perhaps a good smack when deserved actually does help instill good values and respect, that perhaps the traditional family unit of two biological parents raising their kids firmly but fairly is actually best.
August 26th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Backster said: . As DEM MUM pointed out yesterday everytime the Police visit a family they fill out a form for their data base and then pass it on to CYPS who decide whether they will also investigate or take action, whether or not there was any basis to the complaint. If another complaint is received whether malicious or baseless or not that goes on the data base until either one of these enormous agencies decide to pounce. I’m an ex cop but this is an anathema to me. From a Police point of view I don’t even regard it as ‘using discretion’.
As Backster points out….. Smack your child…..Get reported…End up on Gummint data base. Yep, NZ the way you want it folks.
August 26th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Mr Key is making a very big mistake ignoring the punters. Then again, he is a politician and they do know better than the rest of us how to raise children.
August 26th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
I’ve just heard the Rodent on the radio news, talking about what John Key said two years ago about how he would have supported the Borrows amendment had he been in Govt then.
This after the Rodent just last week announced on the radio that he would have to resign if there were to be Maori Seats on the Auckland super council.
Not a good look.
If the Rodent feels he (needs to / can only?) negotiate with Key via public radio interviews, are we to assume that things must be very strained indeed between John Key and the Rodent at the mo?
August 26th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Come on folks, had Helen Clark been this arrogant in refusing to act on the result of an overwhelming referendum we would be screaming, there would be calls about how she was running a dictatorship.
If she had then refused to even send a bill that would solve the problem to select committee we would be showering her in abuse.
So why are so many quiet about the unbelievable way Comrade Key has handled it?
Or is it OK for Key to ignore the will of the people (as Clark did time after time) simply because he is the leader of the National party?
August 26th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
RRM – is your grasp of facts so weak that you’re rewriting history from only a week ago?
Rodney told Key up front that he wouldn’t be able to stay as Local Government Minister if the bill was creating Maori seats in Auckland. He wouldn’t withdraw confidence and supply, but obviously he cannot be the Minister who introduces a bill that directly contradicts his party’s policy. No coalition partner would do that.
Tau Henare, or someone else in National, leaked the e-mail to the media. That then meant that Rodney needed to discuss it on radio. Unlike some politicians he didn’t lie, he confirmed that was what he had said. There was no argument, there was no ultimatum. It was all pretty adult and pretty clear – most of the media commentators also saw that as pretty much a nothing.
It’s sorry that you’re so bereft of dissension in government ranks that you need to make it up.
If I were you and looking for dissension, I’d be looking for it whereever that mail was leaked from. That person is clearly not on board with the government programme.
August 26th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
bruv: Because Right Good, Left Bad. That’s all you need to remember
August 26th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Sorry Bruv, is it fact that he isn’t sending it to select committee? I saw some people comment on that, but I took it to be confusion. If he is not sending it to select committee, then I agree we have a very large problem. I just didn’t want to jump the gun on it, the media are not exactly reliable on these things. There was an earlier report that he was supporting it to select committee.
August 26th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
PaulL – is your sense of the size of your c0ck so weak that you feel some odd need to come out swinging from the first line, instead of just getting to your supposed facts, in order to prove what a manly Kiwiblog man you are?
I know what I heard from the Rodent on air this afternoon:
“John Key Said this when he was in opposition. So John Key HAS to do such-and-such now. What? Why don’t I just discuss this with him? I’ll tell you why – because he keeps laughing at me… Wah wah wah…”
August 26th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
bruv – i think you’ll find most of us here are upset and vocal about what Key’s doing.
i’d like to know who it is that’s found the leverage that was so obviously absent prior to the election.
August 26th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Shit this is the final straw, if Key has truly said they will not support this through to select committee then I reckon backster @ 3.57 is spot on the money. It is the only valid explanation for Key acting like a Clark clone and being a UN puppet/muppet.
Might need to have another CIR with a clearer question. WANKERS, FUCKING WANKERS!
August 26th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
PaulL: Nah, he’s not sending it to the Select Committee. Just heard him on radio. But don’t worry, he’s giving his ‘personal assurances’ no ones gonna be hassled by the law, as it is’ . Yeah right, Mr. Naive Key.
August 26th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Unbelievable. Key is Clark is Key. Our democracy is completely stuffed
August 26th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
richgraham saif: Hello Mr Toad – please get out more often, ask the people you meet how they feel about this wretched business.
I try to base my posts here and on other blogs on evidence – not on populist bullshit about how people feel.
I’m pleased to see that, at least in this instance, John Key is also taking an evidence-based approach.
Looks like it’s Dead Duck Day for ACT and the spankers.
Yippee!
August 26th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
RRM: so you’d like to attack me for pointing out that you’re making shit up, but you think it is funny to call Rodney “Rodent.” OK, I’ll make sure I worry more about your feelings next time. Or then again, you could harden the fuck up. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unkIVvjZc9Y
As for Mr Key – what muppet is advising him? Is he sure Crosby Textor haven’t started working for Phil Goff whilst he wasn’t looking? This is about the stupidest thing I’ve heard in a long time – talk about an own goal. And if it’s his own idea, then, that’s just makes him the freaking muppet.
August 26th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
I don’t trust John Key nor his cabinet, I’m getting the same automated replies from them all, I’m now writing real letters.
there is no postage and a box of envelopes is cheap so come on get sending.
My message reads
Dear John
I don’t want reassurance I want the law changed!
So I do not break the law if I smack my child for corrective purposes.
August 26th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Fuck I know what has happened! Goff has managed to cunningly disguise his own policy adviser to look like Key’s and slipped them into his office, the sneaky bastard……..respect Phil….respect…….
August 26th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
john key has already dumped the bill, despite 87% of kiwis wanting it.
Can’t wait for the protest organisers to get sorted. I’d be keen to shout out my dislike of dictator john – and dictator he is.
August 26th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
As I said earlier Shonkey’s hands are tied the country has been signed over to the control freaks in the UN, we have had the carpet pulled from under us The person who told me this is one of the most level headed clever persons I know. He was adornment that this law can’t be changed, our country has had it’s sovereignty stolen. I doubt Shonkey is a masochist, there has to be a pretty good reason to put up with all this grief.
August 26th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Wreck – 87% of Kiwis wanted to answer “no” to a ridiculously leading, populist bullshit question that said nothing about any bill. So now, behold the result of that.
Perhaps if Revenge Sentencing / Family Fist’s freedom zealots had put up a more sensible question that directly and unequivocally addressed S59 of the crimes act, we would today be in a position where Key couldn’t really say no.
But unfortunately, instead we paid $9 million to debate some waffle about “good parental correction”.
August 26th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
I just can’t believe it!!
I just watched Sue Bradford give a statement on TV about the bill being drawn, and she says she doesn’t think those who voted No would want the State coming in and telling them how much force they should be allowed to use to correct their children.
She can’t be that stupid, surely?! To not see that is what her law does now? Is she just trying to be smart or something? I was stuck for words..
August 26th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
RRM: the question was sufficiently clear, unless you were stupid or deliberately misunderstanding. Plenty of polls have happened around this area, many with better worded questions, and they got similar results. 87% of kiwis want the law changed.
We paid $9 million because the previous government didn’t want to combine the referendum with the election. Which was pure politics, but certainly not the National government’s fault, nor that of the referendum organisers. I’ll agree that it was a very wasteful spend of taxpayer money.
As for what drugs Key is on, no idea. I very much doubt side show bob’s new world order explanation. My guess is that he thinks people don’t care that much, and that they have nowhere else to go. I suspect that he is severely miscalculating.
August 26th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Key might have thought it was smart playing brinkmanship with money traders but playing the same game with a democracy is just plain stupid.
http://www.telstraclear.co.nz/news/news-story.cfm?content_id=776395
National will not support Boscawen bill
Wednesday, 26, Aug, 2009 4:49PM
ACT’s attempt to overturn the anti-smacking law has just been administered a fatal beating.
Prime Minister John Key has announced National will not support John Boscawen’s Private Members’ Bill allowing the use of reasonable force by parents in correcting their children.
“The National Party will be voting against the bill. It’s our view that the law is working. I’ve given New Zealanders and absolute assurance if the law doesn’t work I will change it – and I don’t need a members bill to do that.”
Mr Boscawen’s bill looks set to fail with Labour, the Greens and the Maori Party all expected to oppose it.
August 26th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Now John Key has just come out and said that National will NOT be supporting the Boscawen Bill
What is wrong with him?????
August 26th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
NZ er’s can now see there is only one party with principles and it ain’t National.
Adolf you can stop wiping your nose on Key’s arse cause he has done just what you said he wouldn’t. Brown nosing gets you no where.
August 26th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
Initially after Don Brash was rolled I didn’t trust John Key but I was more than willing to be proved wrong and to get rid of the last lot I voted for my life long preferred party – National. Now I feel the same way as I did when I voted against National in the Muldoon days.
It isn’t just this and please remember it is NOT just about ’smacking’ it is about the way the views of the majority of those that bothered to vote in the referendum are completely ignored. This is no longer about democracy (Government for the people by the people) it is about politicians power and nothing else and has been for some time.
And is the counrty a ‘fairer, safer , richer country for being so? NO.
Is any socialist country in the world a fairer, safer, richer country? No the world is in a mess and we are heading there a full speed.
Thanks Uncle Helen and your successor Brother John
August 26th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
Viking2 said: NZ er’s can now see there is only one party with principles and it ain’t National.
Yep, it’s the Greens. Sorry, ACT don’t qualify – their flip-flop on the Whanganui Fashion Control Bill is evidence enough.
August 26th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
So – anyone taking bets that Boscawen will postpone the debate on the first reading of his bill until … I don’t know … about six months before the election?
August 26th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
Big Bruv wrote
DPF retorted
It turns out it has been an opportunity for John Key to show his colors as an out of touch PC wimp.
August 26th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
“So – anyone taking bets that Boscawen will postpone the debate on the first reading of his bill until … I don’t know … about six months before the election?”
What an idea. And how about in the meantime a second referendum, specifically related to the Boscawen Bill. And have the referendum voted on just before its due for a vote.
August 26th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
Yes – Marxist, regressive, authoritation principles. No thanks.
August 26th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
How stupid does John Key think we all are? Smacking is illegal but we promise to not enforce it as long as we are in government – this is somehow supposed to reassure parents?
The Boscawen Bill was eminently sensible. This is insanity and adds to my suspicions that Key really does oppose smacking but is taking a pragmatists approach to eradicating it from society. One step at a time. Softly, softly.
August 26th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Toad, what principles would that be? One world rule, marxist, authoritarian and so on. Why don’t you just fly off to Cuba, its your natural home. P.S. Take Bradford with you.
Interesting that TV one has ignored the fact that this bill was drawn and the fact that Key has said its not supported. Now why would that be given that Key had his say at 4.30. Plenty of time for those little truffle snufflers to get it to the news room.
Apparently not important news. Eh?
Or were they gagged? Now that would be interesting.
August 26th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
David’s post on the Boscawen bill back in March this year…
This allows reasonable force for correction (in addition to the current grounds of preventing harm, preventing crime, preventing offensive or disruptive behaviour and performing normal daily task incidental to good parenting) but places severe limits on what is reasonable force compared to the previous law.
Specifically it excludes force if:
it causes or contributes materially to harm that is more than transitory or trifling; or any weapon, tool or other implement is used
Now National voted for the Borrows amendment at the committee of the whole stage. So if John Boscawen gets his bill selected from the ballot (which may never happen) I think they would feel obligated to vote for it.
“They might have” but given that we no longer appear to be living in a DEMOCRACY, I guess we’ll never know.
Definition:
* Main Entry: de·moc·ra·cy
* Function: noun
* Inflected Form(s): plural de·moc·ra·cies
Government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
August 26th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
Viking, it did come on just now on One News, but not as one of the main stories. They just said JK has “killed” the Boscawen Bill. They gave more time to a story about JK’s new school programmes etc.
August 26th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
Following the MMP referendum, Labour leader Mike Moore said “The people didn’t speak on Saturday, they screamed.”
“As a nation we changed our voting system with less of a mandate than was given to our politicians last Friday.
“Instead of sending troops to Afghanistan to fight for democracy, maybe we should send them to Wellington!
“Instead of Fiji being suspended from the Pacific Forum,for ignoring the Democratic will of the people, perhaps New Zealand should be suspended…..?”
http://www.nzcpr.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=18&p=23930#p23930
August 26th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
Viking2 said: Interesting that TV one has ignored the fact that this bill was drawn and the fact that Key has said its not supported.
Bullshit!
I linked to their news story on it earlier in this thread.
I often get pissed off with the MSM too over what they do or do not cover and the priority they give it (who in New Zealand gives a flying fuck about Ted Kennedy), but at least check the evidence before making assertions like that.
August 26th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
I wonder what promise Key will break next?, remember he said that he would have a referendum on MMP before the next election, no doubt he will decide that is not in the public interest at this time.
After all, Neville Key would not want to upset his Green party mates would he.
August 26th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Toad
Why are you guys so scared of democracy?
August 26th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
The Gweens get their step to the glorious socialist utopia and Johnny Boy gets to be Mr Pragmatic. The scum have their hands well and truly over the balls of government.
Think I’ll leave the country now.
August 26th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
I love it how you guys always miss the bit about smacking being proven to be an INEFFECTIVE form of discipline. It’s really sweet that you imagine that it’s useful, but those of us who actually specialise in this area, have children of our own, do the research, work with families and see the results of ineffective discipline tools know otherwise.
But keep the rant going, for sure. Those of us who actually know how to get children to do things without having to resort to a smack will get on with the job while you guys piss your life away on this website.
August 26th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
bannanapants, on the contrary, smacking has proven to be VERY effective, and sometimes the only measure that works.
To put it simply – YOU’RE WRONG.
It’s ‘Time Out’ and other such measures that kids could care less about.
August 26th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Vote Act next time eh lads?
August 26th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
democracymum – I share your pain on this. Our leaders need to be taught that they are elected by us to govern democratically, not to rule absolutely.
It feels like we are ruled, with inconvenient democratic punctuations every three years.
August 26th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Nine bloody years of that corrupt bunch of left leaning bullshit artist and my wife and I voted to get them out of government and also out of our family.
Go to hell key, you wont get our votes from this day forward.
To dismiss this bill is nothing worse than HELLEN at her worst.
Your bullshit speech on election night about getting out of families lives is just that a bloody farce.
The nerve of this outfit, who do they think they are defying the democratic process,what a bunch of liars.
LABOUR AND NOW NATIONAL, you make me sick.
August 26th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
“Key has announced National won’t support the Bill”
Honeymoon over – Divorce imminent
August 26th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
Course you do, Doctor Bananapants, PhD in writing on a blog’s comments section and telling everyone else how tewwible they are.
August 26th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Yep, clearly they need a smack in the head to restore some sense.
August 26th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Fletch, my statement is supported my large-scale meta-analysis. What’s your supported by? Gut instinct? How quaint.
Hurfydurfy, I don’t think you’re tewwible, darling. Just a bit dim.
August 26th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Hurf Durf, yeh true. They should ask themselves though, since when has there ever been a Socialist Utopia? Never has been, and never will be. There is no such beast.
August 26th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
Bill English used the same phrase word for word in response to the housing rort. It’s not a serious reason to avoid dealing with the issue. It’s clearly just a phrase the spin people came up with as an excuse.
August 26th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
bananapants, sorry I don’t believe you. My statement is supported by history itself and the statements of people I know who were smacked, not by any “meta analysis” or other clueless study.
August 26th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
A message to Shonkey,
The law is not in fact working, it is not working for children and here is why;
1) Good parents try to raise their children to be law abiding citizens. Now, parents are forced to tell their children that some laws are OK to break, if the PM says it is so. That is confusing and inconsistent for children.
2) If I smack my child I am automatically a criminal, regardless of whether I am “caught” or prosecuted and my children know that. That is bad role modelling for children, and it is confusing and inconsistent.
3) Parents are forced to tell their children that if they tell anyone their Mum sometimes gives them a light smack, they may be taken away from their family (whether they would be or not). Children thus feel insecure and have to watch what they say at school.
The ones therefore that this law is not working for are the children.
August 26th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
IMO Key’s sacrificing the anti-smacking bill (keep that precious wonderful MOU with the People’s Socialist Party) so he can get the supercity through. The PSP are pretty much an adjunct of Liarbore so they’ll dump it soon enough whereas the Maori Party can show some independence sometimes.
August 26th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
Graeme Edgeler (1039) Vote: 4 0 Says:
August 26th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
So – anyone taking bets that Boscawen will postpone the debate on the first reading of his bill until … I don’t know … about six months before the election?
Graeme is right. Key will tough-out all the opprobrium until then. A masterstroke.
August 26th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
Dear bananapants, if smacking really is ineffective (and you may well be right), why not just use persuasive arguments? Why do you need the government to make people raise their kids a certain way? Although that said, maybe you do need it to be illegal – you’re pretty condescending and unpersuasive as it is.
As for Key I have two words for him and they rhyme with “plucking banker”.
August 26th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
BlairM, I have to agree that the arguments which are put forward around the smacking debate are quite poor. Aside from the physiological effects in relation to hyperarousal and cortisol production, there’s the increased likelihood of mental illness and affect attachment in some individuals (certainly not all). This information has not been widely disseminated.
But I don’t even think those are the strongest arguments – the strongest arguments lie in the evidence which proves, without a doubt, that smacking is one of the most ineffective parenting tools we have. Some people might think it’s the best tool they’ve got, but that says more about them than anything else…
We’d be very careful about diagnosing ADHD in a child who is smacked – because smacking tends to deteriorate behaviour and increase cortisol production to such an extent that in some vulnerable kids it’s very difficult to be sure of the underlying causal mechanism.
August 26th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
Yep Bananapants.
I saw a woman in the supermarket yesterday trying to ‘entice her child (about 2 years old) out of one of those shopping carts that look like cars. She was loosing the battle even though she had a piece of cake in her hand and was saying if you get out you can have this cake. The kid was screaming down the place knowing full well that she was in control and not her mother.
I have been there and one short ’smack (for those who dont understand what a smack is, it is a well place open hand application to the bottom that has more shock value than pain) cured my little boy of ever displaying that behaviour again. Because I did it to correct my sons behaviour I would now be considered a criminal.
Funny though he now is a Business Analyst with a major bank and a martial instructor ( which demands discipline) at night he is funny and sweet and smart. No permanent damage there then.
August 26th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
Yep Lucy
Not all people experience significant negative effects from smacking. But some do. Can you tell which ones when they’re children? Unfortunately not.
When my kids have tried the same trick in the supermarket, I stopped them from ever displaying that behaviour again as well. But I did it without a smack.
August 26th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
So in parliament we have a party that got about 3% of the vote representing 88% of the electorate, and people say democracy does not work
August 26th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
History shows the power of the people when they feel they are being ignored. Voting against a government as opposed to voting to support one has probably seen more change of office than anything else. History also shows every time the Nats lurch to the left, Labour moves to the right
surely Keys background is risk analysis – What I can’t understand is what on earth has he got to gain by NOT changing the law? (because he sure as hell has a lot to lose)
August 26th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
The point is bananabrain, we don’t need you to tell us how to raise our kids. To paraphrase someone whose attitude I like a lot better than yours, ’start a group’. You and loony Sue can share parenting tips.
August 26th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
“When my kids have tried the same trick in the supermarket, I stopped them from ever displaying that behaviour again as well. But I did it without a smack”
what sort of bribe – A chocolate bar perhaps? – do they walk or waddle?
August 26th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
“Aside from the physiological effects in relation to hyperarousal and cortisol production” – the same effects are observed in children who spend a lot of time in early childhood education centres. Do you suggest they are also outlawed?
August 26th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
Hurf Durf said: Think I’ll leave the country now.
Good riddance! Afghanistan would be my pick for an appropriate relocation. You can help fight for the forces of liberty and democracy against those evil Muslims.
August 26th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
beats me.
can i hit other peoples kids now?
August 26th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
RightNow – you might not need anyone to tell you how to raise your kids. But it sounds like your kids need someone to tell you.
August 26th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
There still is an instance whereby you are still able to smack, when this prevents injury (Or something to that effect). Question how can John Key guide the police & CYP’s not to enforce the law ?. So we are telling our children that the law does not need to be adhered to. Is that not contempt?
August 26th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Does he have much to lose? All the parties (except ACT) are alligned the same way as him; the only effect it can have is making more people vote hard right:
Labour -No Smacking
National -No Smacking
Green -No Smacking
Maori -No Smacking (after all, smacking was introduced by whites to subvert Maori society according to them)
Progressive -Retired
United Future -No Smacking
Act -parents allowed to Smack
Lose some list MPs to ACT = Get a mandate to go more right wing next election, probably get MPs of higher quality too. The right wing voting block remains the same.
Danger is if Winston First makes a comeback, disgruntled voters may go to him instead of ACT.
DPF said this was an opportunity. Would be interesting to see if he thinks National have taken it or not.
August 26th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
Hey, you’re right, frogboy. At least some of them would be appreciative of Western freedoms and not being shackled by the oppressive concrete of a pseudo-religion. Plucky Lebanon sounds good too. Look at them, driving away your ideological buddies.
August 26th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
Yippee! John Key.
Just on this issue though.
August 26th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
“..Think I’ll leave the country now..”
really hurf..?
(oh..!..still my beating heart..!’..)
i mean..going you’ll raise the average iq here..
..it’d be a win-win all around..
..hawaii is nice most times of year..
dpf has some recent pics..
..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 26th, 2009 at 8:22 pm
What was the line then, spankers?
[Although Cullen didn't actually say that].
End of story!
August 26th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
Less employable people in country= less tax = less DPB money.. eh..
August 26th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
toad, take your gloating at democracy being trampled back to the other gaia worshipers at frogblog. you are exhibiting single digit EQ right now and it is (or should be) embarrassing for you.
August 26th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
In a speech to the Salvation Army in April 2007 just before the Anti Smacking law was passed, John Key said :
“Parenting is a tough job. Children, even the best ones, push the boundaries, and in the real world they can do so for long periods of time. The reality is that most parents will, from time to time, resort to the odd light smack of a child.
No one wants to turn those parents into criminals. That would be an absurd outcome…
And if we have the same objectives it is surely not beyond Parliament’s capabilities to devise a replacement for the current Section 59 of the Crimes Act that will meet these objectives.
My colleague, Whanganui MP Chester Borrows, has put forward an amendment to Sue Bradford’s Bill that would do this. In my view, this is the correct response, and the one Parliament should adopt.
Sue Bradford’s bill makes it a crime for parents to smack their children for the purposes of correction.
Therefore, the bill as it stands will criminalise good parents who occasionally smack their children lightly.
Proponents of the bill say that doesn’t matter; that in reality no one is ever going to be prosecuted for lightly smacking their child. But if the reality is that no one is ever going to be prosecuted for lightly smacking their child, then don’t make it illegal. Don’t make it a crime.
It’s poor law-making to write a very strict law and then trust the police and the courts not to enforce it strongly. The law shouldn’t depend on which police officer or which judge or which jury you happen to get on the day.
As I said before, the way you send a message is to make the law clear and precise and then to police it strongly and vigilantly. Here, we are doing the complete opposite. We are making the law fuzzy and vague – given the confusing statements of various MPs – and expecting the authorities not to enforce it.
The parents of New Zealand who are charged with doing the most fundamentally important task in our society deserve our utmost support.
Of course, if Helen Clark and Sue Bradford don’t want to accept my offer then the public of New Zealand should judge them by their actions – or in this case inactions – and not their words.”
http://johnkey.co.nz/index.php?/archives/81-Speech-to-Salvation-Army-JustAction-Conference.html
August 26th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
getstaffed said: toad, take your gloating at democracy being trampled back to the other gaia worshipers at frogblog
You and your ilk seem to equate democracy as the tyrrany of the majority over the minority.
Don’t forget that kids and young people under 18 don’t get to vote. That should not mean their human rights should be subjugated by decisions thay have no say in.
August 26th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
Paradigm said:
Unless people, and in particular National supporters, decide to abstain from voting at the next election. After all, if the politicians don’t take democracy seriously, they can hardly expect Joe Public to do so.
August 26th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
What was the line then, spankers?
We won, you lost, eat that
[Although Cullen didn't actually say that].
End of story!
That is one comment I will so enjoy ramming back down your despicable communist throat, that “ain’t” over my little red frog, it “ain’t’ over by a long shot.
August 26th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
Of course, for the People’s Socialist Party it was always about power.
Keep celebrating, frogboy. That emissions reduction level isn’t getting any higher.
August 26th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
democracymum said: In a speech to the Salvation Army in April 2007 just before the Anti Smacking law was passed, John Key said: … My colleague, Whanganui MP Chester Borrows, has put forward an amendment to Sue Bradford’s Bill that would do this. In my view, this is the correct response, and the one Parliament should adopt.
And he’s moved on. That may have been his view at the time, but I suspect he also examined the evidence more thoroughly since then (before he agreed to the compromise position that Natioanl agreed to beconing the current law probably), and is still convinced that the current law is working fine.
As the evidence indicates it is.
August 26th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
At 88% democracy is being trampled on. If you can’t see that then I’m sorry for you. But you can, and were the situation to be reversed you’d be pissed, and rightly so.
August 26th, 2009 at 8:43 pm
THE LAW IS WORKING FINE THE LAW IS WORKING FINE
Tell that to little Kash, frogboy.
August 26th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
Ah yes, but what constitutes ‘working fine’ for you and ‘working fine’ for me are completely different. For you anything that gives the state an increased mandate to intervene in family life is evidence of the law ‘working fine’.
For me it’s quite the reverse.
Any law that create criminals from 100’s of thousands of ordinary NZers and then has the PM establish guidelines for the law to not be enfored is evidence of a screwed up ideology
August 26th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
The only good thing I can see about this is an ACT prime minister in 2011. I thought Id lost faith in National before this but apparently I had further to fall.
August 26th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
I’ve always found it ironic that the anti-smacking law is the nefarious work of Sue Bradford, because she has a face like a smacked arse.
August 26th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
“You and your ilk seem to equate democracy as the tyrrany of the majority over the minority’
………as opposed to the tyranny of the minority over the majority?……. Geez Toad, the more you give us an insight into your mind the more you scare the shit outta people
August 26th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
democracymum (551) Vote: 7 2 Says:
August 26th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
In a speech to the Salvation Army in April 2007 just before the Anti Smacking law was passed, John Key said :
demoracymum; ‘Hoist by own petard’ are words that come to mind. Perhaps he should resign his job as Prime Minister and return to the financial markets were bullshit is the de rigueur. NZ’rs do not want a a turncoat like Key as its Leader.
August 26th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
I just made my mind up about who I am not voting for at the next election. Fuck National – and I voted for them last time to get rid of this sort of arrogance. Silly me. I now see no difference between Clark and Key.
August 26th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
Gosh I can hear the teeth gnashing from here…
August 26th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
Bananapants said…
INEFFECTIVE form of discipline. It’s really sweet that you imagine that it’s useful, but those of us who actually specialise in this area, have children of our own, do the research, work with families and see the results of ineffective discipline tools know otherwise.
Haha, you must be a psychologist huh? Psychological studies are mostly bullshit. Take away statistical correlation and psychological studies are nothing but naked bullshit with no causal facts.
Sorry Bananapants, but Psychological studies is not science it is bullshit. You may want to read up on what late Prof. Richard Feynman (Physics Nobel Laureate) said about psychology when he gave a talk at CalTech in the 1970s. Yep, the great physicist himself categorized psychology as Cargo Cult Science. Go ahead and read the whole article so that you understand what proper scientific methodologies should be according to Feyman’s talk.
Cargo Cult Science
So, take your non-scientific nonsense psychological evidence & studies and hand them back to Sue Bradford for her to keep as a souvenir.
August 26th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
Lets just say that if Helen Clark had won the election and then introduced a flat rate tax of 15% you lefties would know how pissed off most of us feel about Key. Given that 88% voted NO in the referndum that includes a lot of people who voted ‘left’ in the last election who will also be gnashing their teeth.
August 26th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
“..Bullitt (55) Vote: Add rating 1 Subtract rating 1 Says:
August 26th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
The only good thing I can see about this is an ACT prime minister in 2011..”
thanks for the belly-laugh..!,,eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 26th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
Why should thios one be any different to the norm?
August 26th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
Did you see the letter in today’s Dompost from a woman who voted “no” but sees no reason for the law to change? Interesting.
August 26th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
The only real unanswered question is: why is Key making such an ill-considered move?
Every other question has been dealt with ad infinitum. Yawn.
SSB and several others address this particular question above.
Whether or not you buy their explanations and counter-arguments, why else is Key taking this palpably idiotic stance?
He is not an idiot, is he.
So why?
August 26th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
Oh giant wit, explain to us what you think “ironic” means.
August 26th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
Er… 100s of thousands? Has there been even one yet? It’s more evidence I think, that you don’t understand what the law currently says. I suspect Key does.
August 26th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
It’s like goldic and silveric.
August 26th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
“Er… 100s of thousands?”
Er… Lew.
A “criminal” in the mind of a right-thinking citizen is someone who commits a crime even if they aren’t prosecuted for it.
It’s called a conscience.
I know you may not have one, and that’s why you don’t get it.
What makes me laugh, is that people like you pretend that you understand what is best for the rest of us.
Fuck you, is mine and my friends almost automatic response. Apparently, you still don’t get it. Expect more of the same from both myself and “the masses,” till you do.
August 26th, 2009 at 9:51 pm
reid – i think Keys deal was with Clark; give her and Cullen cushy numbers and dont touch her social policies…. and the trade off – she’ll put Gooff in charge of Labour
August 26th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
reid, no he’s not an idiot. here’s my guess. he has a two pronged strategy IMO.
first, piss off lots of national voters in a calculated gamble that the net gain of those moving to Act plus those gleemed from the left (probably Labour), less the disgruntled who go elsewhere, will provide for a more strongly right government makeup from 2011.
the second prong is timing. i suspect he will change the law, but wait until 2011 which will challenge Labour to oppose and earn the distain of the 88%, or support it and appear flop-floppy. either way it’s a gain for him.
the issue i have is that this places politics over principle, making him no different to clark.
August 26th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
I get it. If I shoplift I’m only a criminal if I’m caught and convicted. Right? Right?? Wrong! … back to Law101 for you my friend. Every parent who has smacked their child in the last two years is, in all likelihood, a criminal. And if the police stopped prosecuting shoplifting would you regard zero convictions as evidence that the law against theft was working?
As for Key understanding the law, since when did it become acceptable for our law makers to create enforcement guidelines? Their job is to create law. We have separate bodies to enforce and prosecute. IMO this is a dangerous precedent. Our esteemed legal folks could comment further no doubt.
August 26th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
appears llew doesn’t understand the difference between a criminal and a convicted criminal
August 26th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Patrick, it would certainly be vintage Clark
getstaffed, an outflanking move at this point in his term with the economic volatility is unpredictable.
He cannot afford to alienate a single voter, in any way, at this point.
Remember how Clark held every single Minister in rigid check throughout her first term? That’s what he needs to do, twice as bad, since he doesn’t have the economic conditions she enjoyed.
So I don’t buy your proposition. A law-change on this particular issue at the next election will not achieve a margin. If he wants to consolidate his support on this issue, which has a shelf-life, the time is now or never.
August 26th, 2009 at 10:02 pm
patrick – actually it’s a concern isn’t it. the end justify the means for the ardent left. very, how do you say… trotter’esq
reid – if he can’t afford to alienate a single voter… then i retract the observation about him not being stupid. he must be. his perforamance in the last month has been disgraceful
August 26th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
You forget that this will allow Winston (The Popularist) back into the fold. I would not be surprised if we do not hear from him before the week is out, remember he was one of the few who voted for the status quo, there are not many who an say that. And he was only a few thousand votes away from changing the political landscape we now have. He could almost base an entire election campaign on this one issue and be back in parliament holding the balance of power.
August 26th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
“his performance in the last month has been disgraceful”
Well, the two main issues in the last month have been the smacking and the Maori seats on the SuperCity.
He could not have agreed to those seats, since it would have set a central-govt precedent for the establishment of Maori seats on every Council in NZ.
He made the right choice there, I reckon, but that, IMO, is an unavoidable and recoverable and necessary political wound.
This stance on smacking is not in that category. It’s unnecessary, obviously unwise and frankly, plain dumb.
August 26th, 2009 at 10:29 pm
Paul Henry will not let Key off the hook on this one, so it’ll be interesting to see how Key answers the questions and his body langauge, next time they meet on Breakfast.
August 26th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
Again, I come back to the feeling that Key actually believes the Bradford amendment has made the law better. SImply, he believes that smacking should be eliminated. He has stuck me, since he gained office, as a man who says what he means. I think we are in danger of analysing his motives too much, when the most obvious one is the correct one.
August 26th, 2009 at 10:59 pm
He was raised by the state and has warm fuzzy feelings about the state. The state knows best and he is now the state and he knows best you are not to smack your child.
Sit down shut up and do as you are told.
National policy.
August 26th, 2009 at 11:06 pm
Voting Act next Election and won’t be voting National for another considerable length of time.
Big Bruv, the horse has left the gates and it Runs like a Nag I should have trusted your nose.
August 26th, 2009 at 11:16 pm
KINO FLO- stop over thinking it!
PEOPLE SAID NO-undisputed
KEY SAID-sorry
JOYCE SAID-what does it mean?
SHIT what does he think it means, this man is a minister in a government, a paid employee.
If these wankers dont know what the voting public want then they are limited in ability to govern let alone tie their shoe laces.
Key you are stained,never again will you get our votes.
The people spoke and you say sorry, well then accept this”Referendum was the peoples voice, not yours and you can go to hell”
Just what we needed another lying bunch of hypocrites running the outfit.
If the result was reversed I would say keep the law even though I wouldnt like it, because thats what the majority wanted.
You failed badly,in my book the first real test.
Sad I thought we were going to get ahead with this lot.
Silly me,never trust a polly.
Why??
August 26th, 2009 at 11:28 pm
Pretty soon smacking will be like the Catholic Church stance on adultery – even thinking about it will be a crime. What pisses me off the most is Bradford crowing that she has got Key doing her bidding. Helen Key has made a mistake.
August 26th, 2009 at 11:33 pm
1,470,755 out of 4,300,000+, not a majority, you lot fail. Carry on though, your collective panty wetting is hilarious.
August 26th, 2009 at 11:39 pm
racer – your logic is flawed. It was more people than voted for MMP – should we reject that as well?
August 26th, 2009 at 11:40 pm
More votes than what Sue Bradford has ever got, racehurr.
August 26th, 2009 at 11:42 pm
200 out of 500 not a majority.
August 26th, 2009 at 11:49 pm
Getstaffed – sounds like a possible strategy, I hope you are wrong. I am sick of fuckwit politicians playing stupid games and taking the piss out off hard working, well meaning voters who put time and energy into listening to these pathological lying bastards only to be treated like idiots. Maybe we need to walk into parliament and throw the fuckers out!
Bananapants – you are a fucking moron, plain and simple. Educated possibly – but that really isn’t an excuse in this day and age for stupidity.
llew – ditto.
Key MUST be under the same influence as Clark from the UN and it MUST be pretty spectacular shit!! What else can possibly explain his stance on this?
Message to John Key – my partner and I and most people I know would be happy to live on rice and water for the foreseeable future if it meant you behaved in a democratic manner and this country was not controlled by some outside agency. I seriously mean that.
If you are being influenced by the World Bank, IMF or UN then trust me, the people of NZ would rather you told those assholes to fuck off, behave democratically and we will suffer the consequences together. On the other hand if you really think you are doing the right thing then you belong in the same category as llew and bananapants. You are political deadmeat.
August 26th, 2009 at 11:49 pm
“As I said earlier Shonkey’s hands are tied the country has been signed over to the control freaks in the UN, ”
What else could it be? I would bet the UN has been closely watching this issue and making “suggestions” to our govt.
Why the hell is Key extending Sue Bradfords political influence? he has an opportunity to get these dangerous people out of our lives and he won’t bloody do it!!
I will not be supporting national if he continues to behave like the next leader of the labour party, does the guy not realise what he is doing?
What the hell has he got to lose by letting this go to select committee? I am astonished by the seeming stupidity of this decision.
For crying out loud, we just had a referendum with an overwhelming mandate for altering the law, Key annoys people due to his apathetic attitude, this bill comes along so he can save face AND HE BLOODY THROWS IT AWAY. People will be well beyond being annoyed before this sorry mess is sorted out.
As far as I am concerned Key has got his work cut out to regain ANY credibility, it is beyond smacking now, its the principle of the whole stinking issue.
August 26th, 2009 at 11:50 pm
When your only supporters are the hard-left, then you know you’ve made a wrong turn somewhere.
August 26th, 2009 at 11:57 pm
racer mentions “panty wetting” … funny that aye racer ! – on ya mind was it? (yunno with your after dark interests)
[DPF: Warning demerits next time]
August 27th, 2009 at 12:01 am
“Hurf Durf
More votes than what Sue Bradford has ever got, racehurr.”
More votes than what boscowen got also. Opps.
“Patrick Starr
appears llew doesn’t understand the difference between a criminal and a convicted criminal”
Neither do you, you thick fuck.
“Patrick Starr
racer mentions “panty wetting” ! funny that aye racer ! – top of your mind was it? (yunno with your after dark interests)”
Hows apologizing for rapists and murders going? Considering having a game of hide the sausage yourself some time soon? not near me thanks! (preferably your own kids, i’m quite sure they are damaged beyond repair already)
[DPF: 20 demerits]
August 27th, 2009 at 12:05 am
racer, if you wanna bring my kids into this I will find who you are and have a very serious face to face talk.
Are you up to it?
August 27th, 2009 at 12:07 am
Go fuck yourself dick head.
Threaten me all you like, I don’t give a fuck what half wit tossers like yourself think.
How about you sort your shit out and have some manners, and I will do the same.
August 27th, 2009 at 12:09 am
Haha racehurr, looks like you could use some vaseline for that phenomenal arsepain you have. Maybe Bwadford can kiss it better.
August 27th, 2009 at 12:11 am
QQ Racer.
August 27th, 2009 at 12:12 am
But Hurf Durf you haven’t addressed the point I made, Boscowen got less votes also. Anything to say to that, or are you just going to sit there looking stupid.
August 27th, 2009 at 12:20 am
Other than the Gweens are in opposition and the only people who vote for them are the handful of whackos who live in mud huts in the Coromandel? Oh, and racehurr. Can’t forget racehurr.
August 27th, 2009 at 12:25 am
Oh dear…
August 27th, 2009 at 12:26 am
racer1- what is it you dont get?
You know more than me it seems?
Fine,what?now your grinning,love it pal, enjoy it.
Because you cant deny the facts,Im white ,my wifes brown, my kids will be disclipined and your still a wanker.
So I guess I will have to live with that ………. and you can.well who gives a shit what you think……woof woof.
August 27th, 2009 at 12:30 am
You deserve to go to jail.
August 27th, 2009 at 12:32 am
Racer1 – just a couple of minor details. Boscowen never introduced legislation opposed by 88% of the population.
More importantly, if a poll was run tomorrow he would kick Braford’s arse by at least 10 to 1 and probably run Key pretty bloody close. Finally, don’t ever bring people’s family into the debate otherwise you really do deserve a “talking to”.
August 27th, 2009 at 12:36 am
racehurr dunt like it wen peepul spole his wurld veew.
August 27th, 2009 at 12:38 am
“kaya
Racer1 – just a couple of minor details. Boscowen never introduced legislation opposed by 88% of the population.”
Neither did Bradford or anyone else, but that wont stop you from making shit up to try and prove a point.
“kaya
More importantly, if a poll was run tomorrow he would kick Braford’s arse by at least 10 to 1 and probably run Key pretty bloody close.”
1%…
“kaya
Finally, don’t ever bring people’s family into the debate otherwise you really do deserve a “talking to”.”
You do realise that threatening someone with physical violence is also a crime?
August 27th, 2009 at 12:40 am
“Hurf Durf
racehurr dunt like it wen peepul spole his wurld veew.”
Google the following: Green Party, National, April 8, MOU.
August 27th, 2009 at 12:40 am
Oh and by the way Hurf Durf, I live in a mud hut not too far from the Cormandel, (seriously) so hopefully you aren’t generalising. I would probably give the Greens an occasional heads up if they stuck to environmental issues and got rid of Sue Bradford and Keith Locke.
August 27th, 2009 at 12:40 am
(double post removed)
August 27th, 2009 at 12:43 am
Fair enough, kaya.
Google the following: Green Party, National, April 8 and MOU.
I did, and all I got was a picture of Bwadford’s puckered bumhole. Or was it her face? It’s hard to tell.
August 27th, 2009 at 12:44 am
racer1 – yes I fully understand the law. That’s why I don’t threaten people with violence.
August 27th, 2009 at 12:49 am
” Hurf Durf
I did”
Then you would see that the following comment that you made above is bullshit.
“Hurf Durf
Other than the Gweens are in opposition”
Engage brain then open mouth, moron.
“kaya
racer1 – yes I fully understand the law. That’s why I don’t threaten people with violence.”
You very clearly did, that’s what the “”’s mean in the context of your comment, stop being such a liar.
August 27th, 2009 at 1:01 am
racer1 – I was going to explain something to you then I realised you are a moron and it would be a total waste. Wow, that was so much easier.
August 27th, 2009 at 1:06 am
A waste for sure, I can tell you, without you even posting the comment, that what you were going to say is wrong.
August 27th, 2009 at 1:13 am
“racer1 is intelligent” – whoops you’re right again!
August 27th, 2009 at 1:15 am
I am very intelligent actually.
August 27th, 2009 at 2:13 am
DPF wrote:
To my surprise National will not even be supporting the bill at first reading. I thing this is a pretty huge mistake, and one they may regret over time.
I reply:
We’re just going to have to agree to disagree on that. Nice to see Key exposing his spine to daylight, and let’s see more of it.
Meanwhile, if we’re talking about huge mistakes that you may come to regret in time, I’d suggest to Boscawen he be a little more careful about calling senior Police liars, contradicting himself and denying making statements mere seconds after doing so, as he did on ‘Checkpoint’ yesterday. Being able to clearly and factually articulate your own legislation and simple matters of fact also helps.
August 27th, 2009 at 4:06 am
I think the Nats have underestimated the depth of feeling on this issue. I don’t think this is something that will die away because it is now bigger than just Bradford’s Bad Law. It is now about the fact the gummint got a clear message from 90% of the population, and chose to ignore it. The Borrows/Boscawen bill going to Select Committee would have been an easy way for heed the results of the referendum without a knee-jerk legislative change.
August 27th, 2009 at 4:26 am
“How do you rate the performance to date of John Key as PM and Tourism Minister?”
Could I please change my vote from “average” to “very poor”?
August 27th, 2009 at 5:05 am
Has John Key just changed his status to that of “Cocky Prick”?
August 27th, 2009 at 7:58 am
Offshore_Kiwi :
I guess we’re going to have to agree to disagree as well — I think it’s actually ACT and Baldock and Co. who’ve misread the issue. Then again, single issue fanatics always tend to assume everyone is as passionately invested in their pet issues as they are. We shall see who’s right.
BTW, could you stop pulling numbers out of your arse? “90% of the population” didn’t vote in the referendum, let alone cast a NO vote. I know “90% of the population” sounds a lot more impressive that “84% of the 56% of registered voters who responded” (or 47% of registered voters), but it’s just not true.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but nobody is entitled to their own facts.
August 27th, 2009 at 8:16 am
Well said Craig.
What’s more, I suspect much of the “No” vote was motivated by deliberate misinformation from fanatics like Baldock and McCoskrie about what the current law actually does. It didn’t criminalise “smacking” (whatever “smacking” means). Hitting a child (however light or hard) always has been assault, and assault always has been a criminal offence.
What the law change did was remove the justification defence of force that is reasonable in the circumstances for the purpose of correction that previously existed if someone was criminally charged with assault on a child.
August 27th, 2009 at 8:24 am
Toad
Is it possible that you might stop telling lies for just one day?
The lies in this debate came from your very own maggot Comrade Bradford, I know the Greens are the biggest bunch of hypocrites in the history of NZ politics but you simply cannot be allowed to get away with such utter bullshit.
The “NO” vote was an overwhelming warning to the likes of you and your communist mates to keep the fuck out of our lives, you, Neville Key and the Nat’s ignore it at your peril.
We will not be told by Bradford (who did a shocking job with her own kids by the sound of it) how to raise our families and we will not be dictated to by some jumped up little communist who has done nothing of note in her life.
August 27th, 2009 at 8:24 am
” I suspect much of the “No” vote was motivated by deliberate misinformation from fanatics”
you can “suspect” all you want it doesn’t make it true. It was a clear question which expressed the genuine concerne of many average NZs – saying they were manipulated by extremists is arrogant and patronising. and Bradford did unfortunately spend hours equating smacking with child beating – so what were people suppposed to think.
I think you’ll find that having been reassured by Key most people will accpet that and nto want a law change.
August 27th, 2009 at 8:25 am
It could simply be that John Key and a good number of other politicians think that making hitting some legal is not a good idea.
And Key in particular is prepared to stand up to his principles as a caring person and as a parent. That’s not as intriguing as world conspiracy theories but a lot more likely.
August 27th, 2009 at 8:40 am
FACT: Under the current law (as it is written), it is a criminal offence to smack your child for ANY purpose.
FACT: It is neither John Key’s perogative or, any police officer’s perogative to interpret the law based on their own, personal whim.
FACT: Any legislation that leaves itself open to interpretation by any individual, is a BAD law.
August 27th, 2009 at 8:42 am
Craig Ranapia … are you suggesting that 87% of the 56% of the registered voters is some aberrant statistical burp that misrepresents the populations real views on this subject?
Sure, I get the point that you voted “Yes”.
But I’d have said that any opinion poll with 1.68 million votes has a margin of error smaller than the gap between your teeth. Railing against the message from the referendum as if it was some mass delusion only says to me that you have a superiority complex that has been hurt because the great unwashed don’t share your enlightenment.
As you say … no one is entitled to their own facts. The fact is that the referendum is a clear signal that the vast majority of the public want change. Just because you’re not part of that vast majority doesn’t give you the right to make up your own facts.
August 27th, 2009 at 8:44 am
Problem is Cerium there is alot of ambiguity in the law as it stands, in principle i agree it is wrong to assault any individual but there are times when Natural justice is required.
August 27th, 2009 at 8:45 am
racer1 (228) Vote: 0 3 Says:
August 27th, 2009 at 1:15 am
I am very intelligent actually.
You hide it well racer
August 27th, 2009 at 8:47 am
Paul Marsden (576) Vote: 0 0 Says:
August 27th, 2009 at 8:40 am
FACT: Under the current law (as it is written), it is a criminal offence to smack your child for ANY purpose.
FACT: It is neither John Key’s perogative or, any police officer’s perogative to interpret the law based on their own, personal whim.
FACT: Any legislation that leaves itself open to interpretation by any individual, is a BAD law.
EXACTLY Paul
August 27th, 2009 at 8:48 am
Listened to Key on ZB this morning. Interestingly he commented that if he gets the boot because of this issue then so be it – or words to that effect.
My question to Key is – ” Is this the issue you would want to get the boot for?”
August 27th, 2009 at 9:05 am
“Interestingly he commented that if he gets the boot because of this issue then so be it – or words to that effect.”
Well then, lets give the bastard what he wants.
Crusher for PM!
August 27th, 2009 at 9:08 am
It is time that Bill English and Co (including top National MPs) should remove John Key from the leadership. This is a mistake that Phil Goff and high ranking Labour MPs are regretting today for not removing Helen Clark from the leadership before last election, since HC was pursuing her own personal satisfaction in bringing in and supporting unpopular issues without any regards to the well being of the Labour party itself. When such a person (from any political party) is acting recklessly like this without any thought of what consequences that his/her party may end up with, then the top party hierarchy must move to remove that person from the leadership, because such person is acting like that he/she is the party him/herself and not acting to represent the interest of the party as a whole.
August 27th, 2009 at 9:14 am
@ Paul and Lucy “FACT: It is neither John Key’s perogative or, any police officer’s perogative to interpret the law based on their own, personal whim.”
Actually it is EVERY police officer’s perogative. It’s called constabular independence. So the copper who pulled me over doing 83ks had every right to let me off (as he did) or write me a ticket. The bizarre part is the PM telling the enforcers not to enforce.
“FACT: Under the current law (as it is written), it is a criminal offence to smack your child for ANY purpose.”
Nope.
“FACT: Any legislation that leaves itself open to interpretation by any individual, is a BAD law.”
Most legislation needs interpretation. That’s why we have judges. If there was no interpretation required computers could do it.
August 27th, 2009 at 9:22 am
KiwiGreg,
It is a criminal offence to smack your child (or any other person) for any purpose. Is it not?
[DPF: No]
August 27th, 2009 at 9:39 am
KiwiGreg: I stand by my comments. The fact that a police officer might invoke his ‘constabular independence’ does does alter the fact that a criminal offence has been committed. (Perhaps on the day you were nabbed you were lucky to get a cop who was feeling good on that day. Maybe the result might have been different if you had had a cop who had left home to go to work after a blazing argument with his wife (for example)
Good legislation should not require a judge to interpret it or, any other person for that matter. Good legislation should be crystal clear. Why does most legislation need interpretation? Perhaps because it is drafted by lawyers and administered by lawyers, for the sole purpose of them earning a living??
August 27th, 2009 at 10:02 am
KiwiGreg said…
If there was no interpretation required computers could do it.
Yep, computer would be of great help, since the law is written in (a mostly) subjective manner which in terms of human reasoning, it is called fuzzy-logic (reasoning under uncertainty, vagueness, imprecision & ambiguity ). Humans reason everyday in a fuzzy manner. What I mean by this? Some legislations do state explicitly in fuzzy terms rather crisp terms (either true or false scenario – ie, boolean). The debate about smacking, it doesn’t specify explicitly in the law in crisp terms that if the force F (in units of Newtons) of a smack is greater than x (lets say arbitrarily that x = 5 Newtons), then that’s illegal { F > 5}, however if F < 5, then that's fine (ie, no prosecution). It would be nice if the law (in any country) is written in a crisp manner like this, because everything is so clear-cut, but the reality is that humans do reason everyday in a fuzzy manner so, it is no accident that our laws (and most things in life) are also written in a fuzzy manner. This whole saga about the referendum is that the population want the law to be more crisp (clear-cut) although it can never be 100% clear-cut (since we won't start measuring how many Newtons a smack was in order to decide if to prosecute or not), but reducing the fuzziness is just enough to satisfy some.
Anyway, I have seen some titles (including the one shown below) in the computing literatures that attempt to use fuzzy reasoning mechanism in the legal domain.
Analogy making in legal reasoning with neural networks and fuzzy logic (from Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Law)
August 27th, 2009 at 10:06 am
Virtualmark wrote:
Craig Ranapia … are you suggesting that 87% of the 56% of the registered voters is some aberrant statistical burp that misrepresents the populations real views on this subject?
I reply:
No, I’m flat out saying that claiming “90% of the population” voted NO is demonstrably, blatantly untrue. A lie doesn’t become the truth through repetition.
Virtualmark wrote:
Sure, I get the point that you voted “Yes”.
I reply:
Epic Fail… I’m well on the record as rejecting the question as utter bullshit, and I’ve always viewed CIRs as meaningless opinion polls masquerading as democratic participation. I returned a spoiled ballot paper.
How does the old saying go, dear: When you ASSUME you make an ASS out of U and ME both. But in this case, the only arse is you. In future, if you want to know my opinion on any subject, ask. Don’t make shit up and put my name to it.
August 27th, 2009 at 11:50 am
Okay Craig let me restate my earlier comment … Sure, I get the point that you oppose the Borrows amendment, the Boscawen bill, and indeed any initiative to “water down” Sue Bradford’s noble effort to stop child bashing. I apologise for mis-representing your position. Although a (I figure intentionally) spoiled ballot paper sounds like a pissing-in-your-pants kind of protest … you feel warm, but only for a moment.
My comment asking if you thought that 87% of the 56% was some aberrant statistical burp was based on several comments from you I’ve seen both here and at Public Address. It wasn’t based on your response to Offshore Kiwi. It seems you too are quite capable of making an ASS out of U and ME.
The recent referendum – which was better worded than Sue Bradford’s bill – yielded an overwhelming mandate from the public that they want Government to change the law. You may see CIRs as “meaningless opinion polls masquerading as democratic participation” but I’d contend that the majority of the population have a different view. They want referendums which deliver this large a mandate to be heard by politicians and to be respected. Unfortunately the way that the political parties have behaved on this and earlier CIRs it is general elections that run the risk of being equally meaningless opinion polls masquerading as democratic participation.
August 27th, 2009 at 11:55 am
@ Paul I agree “bullet proof” legislation unneeding of interpretation would be great . It just isnt feasible. Maybe the problem is me, but I have drafted quite a bit of legislation in my time and, even if the policy is clear (which of course it isnt in the current smacking de- (bacle) bate), getting it into words is bloody hard.
August 27th, 2009 at 11:56 am
@ Ryan – what DPF said
August 27th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
“Good legislation should be crystal clear. Why does most legislation need interpretation? Perhaps because it is drafted by lawyers and administered by lawyers, for the sole purpose of them earning a living??”
Sorry Paul although we are on the same side I must disagree with you. The interpretation of a word like reasonable should be left to a jury as it changes with context and over time.
30 or 40 years ago people using language in public that is now commonly used on radio and TV would find one convicted in court.
If S59 was restored how it was before Bradford’s bill became law and there were very similar cases I am sure some of the verdicts would be different. Good law should not try to define things to the Nth degree.
August 27th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
KiwiGreg,
Assault is a criminal offence, right?
August 27th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Heh.
August 27th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Er reid, please don’t make unsubstantiated judgement about what I think, seems to me it’s you that’s keen on telling me (and John key) what’s best, when you don’t appear to understand the law as it is.
And if your conscience bothers you… well the solution is obvious. Don’t do it. But since you disagree with what you perceive the law to be, I can’t see why you’d have a guilty conscience.
August 27th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Craig you are the only one blinded about this issue. You and Toad have ideological reasons to oppose this law and you are just as dishonest as Bradford in that regard.
Your arrogance in suggesting everybody was blinded by the dorky Baldock is almost unbelievable. Pull your head out of your back side and wake up.
August 27th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
I’m afraid Toad is correct. But you’re blinkered to fact, so as you were.
August 27th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
I wouldn’t go that far, I’d say it was more from very loose & sometimes inflammatory reporting in the media. Including blogs.
August 27th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Suggestion – John Key – initiate a binding referendum on if the electors still want A) You as Prime Minister B) National as a their elected representatives C) That all referenda are binding
August 27th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
@ Ryan I believe assault is a criminal offence. Not 100% certain what the technical definition of criminal assault is however.
August 27th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
KiwiGreg,
The definition is: “the act of intentionally applying force to the person of another directly or indirectly or threatening by any act or gesture to apply such force to the person of another if the person making the threat has or causes the other to believe on reasonable grounds that he has present the ability to effect his purpose; and to assault has a corresponding meaning.”
August 27th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Imagine all the laws we would still have if we allowed all those non-thinking red-necks to govern by referenda!
Voting would be denied to women
Rape in marriage would be legal
Beating of children would be normal
Homosexuals could be imprisoned
Wages for women would be less than for men for the same job
Be very careful for wishing for things you think you want.
Smackers will now call vigorously for the return of a supposed right to “smack” within the law. In doing so they will be ignoring the reality of many children in New Zealand whose experience of physical discipline is still far harsher and more damaging than a smack”.
The referendum result is non-binding. I urge politicians to resist pressure to change the law and instead ensure that the law’s impact continues to be monitored and reported on and to provide more information to parents on the law and positive discipline.
August 27th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
It is my view, that if this legislation is not repealed, NZ will regret it.
We are already seeing the manifestation in society of how (for example), the abolition of corporal punishment in schools/human rights blah blah blah… has led to a whole new generation of individuals with little or, no respect for authority. This legislation gives all the power and control to yet an even newer generation, who will grow to be even more obnoxious and disrespectful of authority, than the current generation already are. This law is a social experiment destined to failure, forcing a change in the dynamics between a parent and child, thats existed since the dawn of evolution.
As ye shall sow, then ye shall reap.
August 27th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
@ saffy WTF are you smoking? You have no basis for making any of those assertions.
@ Ryan I may have missed something but what is your point?
@ Paul I doubt it – I dont like the legislation but I dont think its the end of civilisation as we know it either.
August 27th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
We already regret it.
and many people now have buyers remorse over National.
Which is funny in a sad way as (there was no need for this to happen) without National the law would never have existed in it’s present form.
JK could have come to the rescue and we would have been eternally grateful at getting rid of Aunty Helen and Helengrad and it’s laws.
Now we see him and the other National MP’s for what they are.
It’s actually a good thing this has all happened for there can be no bullshitting about the facts now.
There is too much history and it is being concreted by every TV appearance and press statement by John Key and every email we get back from a National MP.
August 27th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
I give my children a light smack (no bruises or other injuries) for correctional purposes and a well meaning (nosy) neighbour dobs me in. The police will turn up at my house (ignoring the burglars at my other neighbour) and I wind them up and they decide to prosecute me with the help of CYFS.
Can I then turn around and sue John Key for giving me a false assurance that the Police will ignore the law as this discretion is solely in the hands of the officers attanding to the complaint, who could be in a bad mood for any other unrelated concern. I can cliam that the PM of this country was giving public comments on the police not prosecuting parents and that the police have no right to prosecute.
August 27th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Paul, I think the law will get changed but not until very close to the election. See what MacDoctor has to say.
http://www.macdoctor.co.nz/2009/08/27/dangerous-calculation/#comments
This delay is good for ACT but not good for families and as we see it will not save one child.
August 27th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Chuck. I agree with you, but what I don’t agree with is ‘politics before principal’ In the meantime, what happens to all the parents who are harrased and have their lives upheaved by the police whom, (even if they do not prosecute), will automatically have their names entered into a government data base, regardless??
August 27th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
I am am ACT member I know John Boscawen. He is man of principle unlike Key. I am sure he will be pushing hard for a law change ASAP and not just counting votes. It would be good for New Zealand to have a prime minister who put principle ahead of politics.
August 27th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
As I understand it, S59 never stopped assaulting a child from being a criminal offence, but rather provided a legal defence in court after someone had been charged for assaulting their child, like self-defence or temporary insanity or provocation.
My point is it was and still is a crime to smack a child, for whatever reason. The difference now is that, once in court for it, you can no longer use the defence of reasonable force for the purposes of correction.
August 27th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
“the abolition of corporal punishment in schools/human rights blah blah blah… has led to a whole new generation of individuals with little or, no respect for authority.”
Respect for authority should be learnt before children get to school.
How does hurting someone get them to respect you? Are you confusing respect with fear?
August 27th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Could someone explain “respect for authority” to me?
August 27th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Cerium: How does hurting someone get them to respect you? Are you confusing respect with fear?
I’m not confusing anything. You are confusing a fully developed adult brain (female around 18 yrs old/male around 25yrs old), with a child/adolescent brain
and how they respond to different stimuli.
August 27th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
For example, I believe I was very well brought up and raised to respect other people/property etc. However, on the occassions I did wrong (and knew I did wrong), I got flogged for it. When I was at school (including my teen years) and did wrong (and knew I did wrong), I got flogged for it. What these two examples have in common is that my underdeveloped brain did not make the connection between actions-equal-consequences. A good flogging instilled that connection in my brain, and I never made the same transgressions again.
August 27th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Are you suggesting a young brain doesn’t fear being hurt?
August 27th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Smacking is merely ’stimuli’
That’s a relief!
And so, we find, is flogging!
Even greater reason to rest assured.
August 27th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
In other words Cerium, it gave me respect for authority that ‘bad means bad’ and that ‘no means no’, and that I feared ever making the same mistake again. Lesson learn’t.
August 27th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Cerium, I think nearly all parent would agree that you can’t rationalise with a 2 year old. There are times when it’s useful to have, among your range of parenting options, the ability to insert a short, sharp shock that snaps things into attention.
My children are good well-behaved polite kids. Most of the time they respond well to calm talk. They always respond well to bribery, but that’s not something I want to overdo. Occasionally I have to resort to “time out” or loss of privileges. Very occasionally I have to use a smack. Once. On the bottom. With an open hand. Transitory and trifling discomfort. I may have to resort to that step once every 3 or 4 months.
I would never hit my kids with an implement. I would never smack them with such force it left a bruise. They are in no danger of becoming another Nia Glassie or Kahui twins. But I know a very occasional smack has value. I strongly resent being criminalised for that. I have no faith in John Key’s “Trust us, we’re the Government, we won’t prosecute”. If he genuinely believes that then he is a naive deluded man. I don’t really believe he is a naive deluded man, so that makes me think he’s just a disingenuous one.
Interestingly, most of the time I have to resort to it is in things like reinforcing that they shouldn’t run out on to the road … which I believe the Bradford law still allows me to. Indeed, the Bradford law arguably allows me to bash them with a paddle for it if I wanted to – something I would never contemplate doing.
August 27th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Cerium (907) Vote: 0 0 Says:
August 27th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Are you suggesting a young brain doesn’t fear being hurt?
Of course they do. Thats why smacking is a punishment of last resort, but is often the only stimuli that a young, disobedient child will react to, that will curb its behaviour. Ditto, corporal punishment at schools.
August 27th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
“Nice to see Key exposing his spine to daylight, and let’s see more of it.”
What? You could see through Key’s spine, because he has none. He’s an appeaser and National will regret his decision.
August 27th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Shunda barunda:
Craig you are the only one blinded about this issue. You and Toad have ideological reasons to oppose this law and you are just as dishonest as Bradford in that regard.
I reply:
It’s pretty tragic when a respect for simple fact (which you don’t even try to factually rebut) is dismissed as “ideology”. Yes, I believe in fact and respect for truth. If that’s ideology, so be it.
I’d suggest you pull your own head out of your arse, but I’m afraid the hypothermia might be fatal.
August 27th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Toad, you say the present law is intended to scare the parents if they smack their children. Then it is ok for 5 year olds to come home and set the rules for the family because that is what they were told by their teachers. You think this is ok. Something similiar happened in Cambodia The children picked to see which adult would be executed when the Khmer Rouge took over Cambodia in the 70’s. I think this is a fair comparison because both bring about the destruction of the family. The latter of course is more immediate, the former taking gernations and not quite as noticeable. I think this is why this whole issue is very important for New Zealand. You want to destroy its future, most here want to preserve it.
August 27th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
virtualmark wrote:
Okay Craig let me restate my earlier comment …
I reply:
All you have to do is stop making stuff up and putting my name to it. Seriously. Try it just once, and you might even come to like it.
August 27th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Ryan Sproull said: Could someone explain “respect for authority” to me?
I think it means “Do what I say or I’ll whack you”, Ryan. At least it seems to mean that to a lot of the punters over here.
jackp said: Something similiar happened in Cambodia The children picked to see which adult would be executed when the Khmer Rouge took over Cambodia in the 70’s.
I don’t think it is worth dignifying your Godwinning the thread in that manner with a substantive response, jackp.
August 27th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
“The children picked to see which adult would be executed when the Khmer Rouge took over Cambodia in the 70’s.”
No wonder Keith Locke is such a fan of the anti smacking bill.
How often did Bradford smack her kids Toad?
August 27th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Toad, you can’t respond because you know I am right. Intellectually it sounds absurd but emotionally it does the same thing to the parents.
August 27th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Those that respect authority don’t need to have it explained.
Suffice to say that the authoritarian, Marxist Greens’ corrupt world view would see citizens forced to submit to one absolute authority figure – the state.
This is why family and church come under sustained attack from the hard left… because these institutions represent authority and values systems that may be chosen, and it’s hard to force an ideology into peoples’ minds when inherited and/or church values get in the way.
August 27th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
bruv, Bradford says she never smacked her kids. No-one’s ever come up with any evidence to refute that, so we should presume it is true.
I’m not going too far down the Khmer Rouge path bruv, other than to link to Keith Locke’s statement here.
Interestingly, bruv, one of the few survivors in Parliament from the successive NZ Governments that supported the Khmer Rouge is your mate Roger Douglas. Both Labour and National shamefully continued to support the Khmer Rouge on the international stage right through the 1980s – long after Keith Locke realised they were genocidal despots.
August 27th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
toad (1477) Vote: 0 0 Says:
August 27th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Ryan Sproull said: Could someone explain “respect for authority” to me?
I think it means “Do what I say or I’ll whack you”, Ryan. At least it seems to mean that to a lot of the punters over here.
Toad: In the same manner (and to enforce their will), isn’t that what Govenments do when they send their own people off to war, to kill other people??
August 27th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
getstaffed said: Those that respect authority don’t need to have it explained. Suffice to say that the authoritarian, Marxist Greens’ corrupt world view would see citizens forced to submit to one absolute authority figure – the state.
Funnily enough, I have very little respect for authority. Authority needs to be earned to be respected. You don’t respect someone’s authority because they are in a position of power. You respect it if they have demonstrated the leadership of and empathy with those thay have power over to justify them having that power.
Guess on that reasoning I might be more aligned with anarchism (which is the ultimate in libertarianism) than the Marxists that guys like you make us Greens out to be.
But the pseudo-libertarians of the ACT party don’t really know anything about that. They think Hayek’s economic philosophy is the be-all-and-end-all of libertarianism. Most of them have probably never even bothered to read the works of true libertarians like Proudhon or Bakunin, because that would rattle their comfortable little cages (re property rights) far too much for their comfort.
August 27th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
Paul Marsden said: Toad: In the same manner (and to enforce their will), isn’t that what Govenments do when they send their own people off to war, to kill other people??
It is indeed, Paul. That’s why I oppose our Government sending anyone off to war to kill other people (including the recently announced SAS redeployment to Afghanistan).
August 27th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Toad, I am not going to put this on a low political level. I am talking about the potential of family break down as gettstaffed is talking about. The Khmer Rouge destroyed families. When the state like a primary school teacher is ordered to tell little johnnie that his parents are not allowed to touch him, this gives little johnnie power. The Khmer Rouge gave those children the power to decide which adult was to live as punishment if the adult did not stick to their rules. Why did they give the chldren that power?? Because children will learn that they will abide by the state and not their family or adult. This is Sue Bradford’s whole agenda and it desperately needs squashing like a bug carrying the swineflu.
August 27th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
Well toad, the next time a copper directs you to stop at a checkpoint I suggest you make good your boldly declared absence of respect and drive on by. Me? Well call me old fashioned but I respect the authority of the institution of the police and would therefore stop.
August 27th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
jackp said: Because children will learn that they will abide by the state and not their family or adult.
And rightly so. What if their father or mother is beating the shit out of them, fucking them, or torturing them, jackp? Or even killing them?
It is the state that ultimately needs to set the limits of what is acceptable parental treatment of children – leaving it wholly to parents exposes children to the extremes of abuse.
August 27th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Ah the calm, unemotional voice of reason. So remind me toad, just how these atrocities relate to a light smack for the purpose of correction. Oh, that’s right they don’t.
August 27th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
getstaffed said: Well call me old fashioned but I respect the authority of the institution of the police and would therefore stop.
So would I. But if I had done nothing wrong, it is only to avoid the hassle of coercive power – not because of respect for it.
More to follow – I’ve just re-read your post@ 5.06, and it is inconsistent re your approach to authority.
August 27th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
jackp is right. I am not a parent, but I know many school teachers (an immediate family member of mine is also a Commissioner), and most of my female friends have children at school. It has been spine-chilling to learn what (some) school teachers are telling their students nowadays regarding what their rights are vs their parents. Its frankly, insane.
August 27th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
Toad re beating them etc it is society that sets the limits and the state represents what the society deems. Otherwise we get what we have here today politicians deciding upon what the public do NOT want. Now with a belief or some other forms of common acceptable institutions or framework we have a spirit level (excuse the pun) or a moral level of what is acceptable and a given for how we conduct our lives and society. Otherwise with mutli bases of what is and not acceptable there becomes a lower or reduction in tollerance of behaviour and everyone is right so we ALL lose
August 27th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
I just cannot work out why the Greens spend so much time and effort beating back democracy, what is it about the anti smacking bill that means so much to them.
It is not about the welfare of kids, that much is obvious, the Green party refuse to go anywhere near the real perpetrators of child violence lest it be deemed to be “culturally insensitive”.
I suspect it has more to do with them being able to give the middle finger to white, middle class Kiwi’s (the very ones they hate with a passion), i suspect it has more to do with them knowing they have the power to control their life.
I look forward to the day when this bill is overturned, it may take a little longer than we had hoped but it WILL BE overturned eventually.
August 27th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
getstaffed said (@ 5.06): Those that respect authority don’t need to have it explained. Suffice to say that the authoritarian, Marxist Greens’ corrupt world view would see citizens forced to submit to one absolute authority figure – the state. This is why family and church come under sustained attack from the hard left… because these institutions represent authority and values systems… (my emphasis).
getstaffed’s post here is typical of the inconsistent ideology of many of the so-called libertarians who post here. This post indicates he’s not libertarian at all. He’s authoritarian – he loves the authority of the family (read patriarchal father, maybe) and the church (yeah, the Crusades were great, eh, as is the homophobia, the denial of a women’s right to control over her own body, and the ).
getstaffed’s so-called “libertarian” ideas are designed to subjugate themsot exploited and vulnerable people in our society to the authority of church, multinational capital, and abusive family members.
Whereas the Greens’ so-called (by getstaffed and others here) “authoritarian” policies are designed are designed to liberate those same exploited and vulberable people from the oppression of those forces of authority.
You so-called “libertarians” have got it all arsey-boo! Start with this, guys.
Not that I’m saying Proudhon had it all right about the distinction beteen liberalism and authoritarianism, but he had it better than you do getstaffed.
August 27th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
Oops, distracted in middle of last post, came back to it and forgot, so an unfinished sentence.
Sorry, could have said something about priests fucking kids though, but didn’t.
August 27th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Whereas the Greens’ so-called (by getstaffed and others here) “authoritarian” policies are designed are designed to liberate those same exploited and vulberable people from the oppression of those forces of authority.
We’re talking about children, not the Jews in Egypt. There’s nothing I love more than Gween arrogance.
“Oppression,” fucking hell, the PSP really has lost the plot.
August 27th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
toad, I don’t know where to start on that. I obviously regard almost every word as a pile of undignified tripe, but in doing so recognise that you and I have diametrically opposed world views. On that basis, a point-by-point analysis and/or refutation would be, um, quite pointless.
August 27th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
toad
Your reply to getstaffed is a low one (even for you), I take it you have no real comeback to what he has to say because in true left wing fashion you lurched into the usual abuse of religion, it also became obvious that you are fucked for a reply when you accused him of being homophobic.
Just what is it with you fuckwits?, can you not debate an issue without resorting to denigrating a persons religious views?, you sure as hell would not abuse a Maori person if they talked of mythical monsters and you would never dream of having a crack at a Muslim so what is it about his views that scare you so much?
Finally, I love hearing you guys bang on about keeping our kids safe when you are the same people who would happily allow a woman to murder a child when she was eight months pregnant, hell, even in your propaganda you treat pregnancy like a disease you people always say ” the denial of a women’s right to control over her own body” as if the woman has a right to rip a disease or illness from her body, well, it is not a disease Toad it is a bloody child, and no amount of bullshit rom you people will ever change that.
You people are nothing more than hypocritical low life scum.
August 27th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
Roger Nome has been permanently banned from Kiwiblog – good riddance.
But he said this over at The (Double) Standard, and in my view, it really does sum up the mentality of some lefties (like Racer on this thread) on this issue:
What a fucking idiot.
I felt physically ill when reading about the poor treatment of Nia Glassie; no child deserves to be treated like she was. And what about Hinewaoriki Karaitiana-Matiaha (otherwise known as Lillybing)? Another disturbing case history is here – warning: contains disturbing content.
These are hardly families likely to vote National or Act, are they?
[DPF: I have concluded that the level of hate Roger Nome has of those who disagree with his politics is so extreme that is may be a psychiatric illness]
August 27th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
getstaffed
You and Comrade Toad do indeed have diametrically opposed world views, the difference between you two is that he would actively seek to deny you your right to disagree with him, if he had his way he would ban you speaking out against the agreed Green party line.
One only has to look at the way he blatantly lied about Bradford not smacking her own kids when there is plenty of evidence that she did.
There is a word for that type of political thinking.
August 27th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
big bruv said: …you lurched into the usual abuse of religion, it also became obvious that you are fucked for a reply when you accused him of being homophobic.
I am trying to debate on philosophy bruv, not trying to attack someone personally. What getstaffed posted represents much of what lots of commenters here think an post.
I did not accuse getstaffed of being personally homophobic. I accused Christian (and even worse, probably should have accused Muslim religions, for that matter) religions of being homophobic.
Buying into that, as getstaffed has done, supports homophobia, even though it may not have been his intent. Bruv, you and I have agreed in the past that we have no time for Middle-Eastern superstition. How come you are trying to use it against me now.
Sorry, gotta go an do some work. Will continue this shortly.
August 27th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
bruv, Thanks for your support. I don’t bear toad an ill will. He belongs to a party that has all the ideological leftovers stewing together in the hope of one day appearing gourmet to the voters’ palate. Instead their ideology looks, smells and tastes pretty foul to most kiwis. I’m thankful for that. Interestingly, you and I disagree on a few things (I’m a devout Christian so that’s a clue!) but we still manage to find common ground to focus on. Not sure how much common ground toad and I have. I know he likes wine… so that’s a start!
August 27th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
Toad
You well know that I have no time for religion, HOWEVER, that does not mean I have the right to abuse others for their views and beliefs.
I have never said I hate religion, I have never said that I ‘have no time” for followers of middle eastern superstition, what I have always said is that middle eastern superstition is NOT FOR ME.
That is a world away from what you say on the matter.
August 27th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
In all the blogs I have read no one answers this question for me, if smacking for corrective behaviour is a crime, the Police CYPs etc are not going to bother, how do you teach children (and adults) to abide with the rules, laws and respect for others and the authorities. There is no consistency.
August 27th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
Herodotus – simple answer: you don’t teach respect for rules & laws. and that’s the plan.
if one criminalises good parents while delinquency skyrockets you have a mandate for increased state intervention in our lives. children belong to the state first you see. parents exist to work and pay tax. their role is not to pass on their value systems to their offspring. so goes the Marxist mantra.
the sooner ‘average’ NZers realise what’s been going on here for the last 35 years the better.
August 27th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
Getstaffed, you forgot to add that you eliminate the teaching of history!!, so there is no learning from the past, or those than can profit by misrepresenting it
August 27th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
Interesting point guys.
Actually I would say that children are a gift from God and that parents are the natural unit charged to bring up and protect children. Therefore parents rights come from God and are immutable and definitely not to be taken away at the whim of the state.
Those who are godless tend to become ’statists’ ie they rest ultimate authority in the state. Therefore for them it is perfectly natural that children are not the parents responsibility. Ultimately they think it is the job of the state to guarantee the rights of children, even when those rights go against the authority of the parents.
I think the statist has an unsustainable and unnatural world view. And parents are quite rightly resisting the unwarranted intrusion of the state in to the god given rights of parents to bring up their children.
August 27th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
(Back now – sorry, had an urgent work task and couldn’t continue discussion earlier).
big bruv said: …You well know that I have no time for religion, HOWEVER, that does not mean I have the right to abuse others for their views and beliefs.
Actually, bruv, I’m not abusing anyone. I think both Jesus and Mohammed were among the good guys who fought against oppression.
But their actions and teachings were subverted, primarily by Paul in the case of Christianity and by Abduh in the case of Islam, to create religious oppression that reinforces patriarchal, homophobic and – in those days feudal, but now capitalist – oppression.
Just a pity much of the world bought into this religious shit, instead of looking at the real meaning of the teachings of two guys who were great philosophers opposed to oppression in all forms.
Their teachings were bastardised into reinforcement of oppression after their deaths, and it is that which gives rise to modern Christianity and Islam.
August 27th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
It beggars belief that John Key could betray the people that voted him into power. To add insult to injury, his views on the matter were clearly recorded, prior to the election. If he is putting ‘politics before principle’ and his perceived, changed view on the matter is just a cynical strategy to change the law, shortly before the next election, then he is making a grave error of judgement. If his radical, 180 degree changed stance in this matter is genuine, then NZ neither wants or, needs a leader of such flakey disposition and he should remove himself forthwith from office, and perhaps go back to the finance industry where bullshit is more the de rigueur.
In the meantime, I resent him being referred to as the Right Honourable and that my taxes should be paying him a moment longer.
August 27th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
big bruv said: …he blatantly lied about Bradford not smacking her own kids when there is plenty of evidence that she did.
She has denied it. If there is evidence post it here. And to sue.bradford@paliamnet.govt.nz, so she may have the opportunity to refute it.
Be fair bruv. After all, you were talking about evidence here, not things someone has made up for their own political ends.
August 27th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
Shit, too late on the edit when I saw the typo. Address should be sue.bradford@paliament.govt.nz, bruv.
Send her all the evidence you have (which I suspect is none).
August 27th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
Today I felt a touch of melancholy and nostalgia as I remembered with pride the incredible effort of the blogosphere during the dying months of the Clark/Peters Government. Like cyber soldiers on Google’s beaches, we were consumed with the battle before us, and worked tirelessly night after night to ensure that at the end of the great battle, our democracy remained intact.
Who could forget Whaleoil’s Hitler video or the tenacity of Roar Prawn, No Minister, and MacDoctor, and numerous others as we dissected Winston’s efforts at the Privileges Committee line by line? The humour and creativity of the billboard campaigns – fond memories, happier times! I remember the sense of pride I felt when I discovered Winston at the Karaka races (despite his protestations to the contrary).
We have fought a long and hard battle on behalf of our democracy which is why I am feeling particularly gutted today, at the realisation that for the time being our democracy is dead. That all we fought for during these last few years has been incinerated and tossed aside, in an instant, like yesterday’s unwanted toy.
I am not sure where we go from here, but I do know that I am not done fighting for something that was so precious to my forefathers that they died on foreign soil, defending the very rights, that we have now had snatched from us, during these past few weeks.
I have always been immensely proud to live in a country that was the first in the world to give women the vote, but I do not see many female voices at National’s top table and even fewer speaking out on behalf of the mothers around our country who are now living with the injustice of this senseless law.
Thomas Jefferson once said “Information is the currency of democracy.”
If that is so then 1,470,755 voices cannot go unheard.
August 27th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
democracymum said: Thomas Jefferson once said “Information is the currency of democracy.”
Problem is, in this instance, disinformation won the day in the referendum.
Larry Baldock, Bob McCroskie and the pro-spanking ilk did a superb job of portraying the law as “criminalising good parents”.
They also did a good job of manipulating a very poor law re the wording of Citizens Initiated Referenda to get a loaded, complex, and misleading question into the referendum. Hard for most people (unless they understand how cycical and manipulating the wording of Savill’s and Baldock’s referendum was) to vote “Yes” to good parents being criminalised.
But credit to John Key. He saw through the bullshit, and looked at the evidence. The current law is workign well. It is increasing alleged child abuse being reported, which is good, and it is also not resulting in good parents being criminalised (which is also good).
Democracymum, your blog name would suggest that you would understand that democracy is not about the tyranny of the rule of the majority over the minority. It is about everyone’s input being taken into acocunt, but decisions being made by our elected representatives on the basis of the evidence, rather than their or our personal opinions and prejudices.
August 27th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
So a tyranny of a minority then Toad.
August 27th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
Yeah sorry Lew. You’re a rational person.
However, on this issue, taking that position, belies acknowledgement of the issue. Which is: the law, whether or not enforced, allows as it stands, the possibility of an unwarranted intrusion by state agencies: police and CYFs, into a most intimate private familial area.
The fact it’s those particular state agencies is the reason it’s an issue with the Labour voters, since those have the most dealings with them. The reason Conservatives don’t like it is because we don’t think it’s justified under the palpable fact that parents getting off with unjustifiable violence was never a common issue: i.e. it was never a problem.
Child abuse WAS and IS a problem, but Conservatives know that this won’t do anything about that. Some idiot lefties of course think it would, and disingenuous arseholes who know better tell the idiot journos that it will. Isn’t that sad and telling.
That’s the issue.
August 27th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
“Larry Baldock, Bob McCroskie and the pro-spanking ilk did a superb job of portraying the law as “criminalising good parents”.”
Toad, Bradford also said that If a parent gives their child a light smack on the bum they are, in theory, a criminal under this legislation.
http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/files/0618%20National%20Radio%20-%20Bradford%20attempts%20to%20explain%20the%20law.mp3
Facts can be so inconvenient can’t they?
August 27th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
Toad, you blame the wording in the referendum, there is a process that this went through. The clerk of the house who I am told has a very good legal brain allowed this to proceed, after initially declining the original wording.
What gets me in all this is how cynically the system has been manipulated by vavious political factions to get what we have now. NZ is a very apathetic country (If you exclude Maori who I think we all could learn alot from in active protesting). This I think is the manifestation of all that has gone on in the past, and like a big teenage pimple has burst with all the mess that we have now. That we are not being listened to.
August 27th, 2009 at 9:43 pm
democracymum – well said. Best thing we can do is make sure this isn’t allowed to be forgotten about which is what Key and National are hoping for.
August 27th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
The wording is a red herring, the result was so overwhelming that (as DPF has said) removing the word “good” would have made no real difference.
August 27th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
Andrew W said: Toad, Bradford also said that If a parent gives their child a light smack on the bum they are, in theory, a criminal under this legislation.
She was right. That is what the law says. All assaults (including me putting my arm around your shoulder if a rugby team we both support has just won) are, in theory and before consideration of justification defences, prima facie a criminal offence.
Whether they, in law, can result in a criminal conviction depends upon the whether the factual circumstances give rise to a legal defence of justification.
As it should be.
August 27th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
toad – If I hear one more of you morons quote “tyranny of the rule of the majority” out of context one more time I am going to scream. You really are talking out of your arse. From Wikipedia:
“The phrase tyranny of the majority, used in discussing systems of democracy and majority rule, is a criticism of the scenario in which decisions made by a majority under that system would place that majority’s interests so far above a dissenting individual’s interest that that individual would be actively oppressed. The phrase refers to tyrants and despots whose behavior causes similar oppression.”
It is applicable when the minority are forced to do something against their will or are oppressed. Neither is the case here or do you feel oppressed because you have the choice to discipline how you wish? Fucking oppressive huh?
Idiots.
August 27th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
folks, toad et al are impervious to the truth on this. If I shoplift but am neither challenged, apprehended, charged or convicted… I am still a criminal. This is fact.
Another [related, relevant] fact is that any parent who has smacked their child for the purpose of correction since the repeal of s.59 is a criminal.
They live knowing that at any moment their choice of corrective method could see their parenting subjected to the scrutiny of the state agencies, potential conviction, meddling CYFS etc etc.
So just again for the IQ challenged: the law as it stands is criminialising good parents. Period.
August 27th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
So you now have no objection to the no vote lobby pointing out that the law was “criminalising good parents” they weren’t spreading “disinformation” as you claimed.
August 27th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
It’s not an assault, it’s a battery, toad. In any case, why the hell, if you always intended to allow loving parents to correct their children physically for the safety of their children, didn’t you say so in the first place?
You never did.
Instead, you pretended you thought every parent was bent upon assaulting their child, and you had to stop them.
How dumb.
Yet you did it.
And other parties agreed with your insanity.
How odd.
August 27th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
kaya said: From Wikipedia: “The phrase tyranny of the majority, used in discussing systems of democracy and majority rule, is a criticism of the scenario in which decisions made by a majority under that system would place that majority’s interests so far above a dissenting individual’s interest that that individual would be actively oppressed.
Kids can’t vote. Nor can young people aged under 16.
QED, kaya.
August 27th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
Oh toad you really are pathetic, you know fine well you were referring to the “YES” campaigners. You people invented the word obfuscation.
August 27th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
reid, don’t know WTF you are talking about. “Battery” has no legal definition in NZ criminal law. It does in tort, but that is a different matter.
A few beers or joints tonite reid? Your comment was pretty garbled and shows little understanding of law – be it criminal or tort.
August 27th, 2009 at 10:17 pm
Toad, I take it from your comment kids can’t vote that parents do not considered the welfare of their children. Then either castrate all men before 13, or just get the state to take official control & then we wouldnt waste then next few decades getting to that place. This is one thing that the Greens, Labour & now the Nats have never said practically all parents love their children and do what they consider what is best for them, so they do indirectly have a vote. Come out on a Saturday & watch some sport there is a beautiful picture of loving parents doing their best for their children.
August 27th, 2009 at 10:19 pm
Here’s a comment that impressed me on another blog (hope the author doesn’t object to me posting it here), it explains something that yes vote supporters just don’t get, why? Perhaps because they’re blinkered by their own self-righteous arrogance, perhaps because they’re so blinded by their ideology that demands they force their views onto everyone else. Whatever their problem is, this comment puts it in terms that even they should understand (some hope), that reasonable correction is everything to do with the attitude of the parent, little, if anything to do with the method used:
Ubiquitous Che // August 26, 2009 at 10:13 am
As someone who experienced some physical and emotional abuse growing up, here’s my two cents:
I don’t want this to be a sob-story – many children are abused far worse than I ever was. On the scope of things, my experiences are on the mild end of the abuse spectrum – but even so, abuse is abuse.
Its was my father. Without going into too much detail, he would vent on me. If I did something a little bit naughty, he’d completely overreact.
As an example, when I was 8 a friend has come over. We’d raided the lego and toy box to each create an army, and we’d turned my entire bedroom into a giant battlefield. Eventually we got sick of it, and just sat in the corner chatting.
My father walked down the hall past my room, and saw we weren’t playing. Gruffly, he told me to clean up now since I was done playing – perfectly good dad-behavour there.
So my friend and I started casually tossing toys back into their boxes and dissasembling legos, as we were chatting.
About ten minutes later my father came past the room again. We’d hardly cleaned anything. He strode forward – long legs – his face pinched. He backhanded me across the face. “I told you to clean your f**king room!” he hissed. “Do as your f**king told!”
The thing is – the hand to the face didn’t actually hurt. Other times he did hurt me, but I can barely remember those. But this instance sticks out in the memory. It wasn’t the actual physical violence that was the heart of the abuse – as I kid, I hurt myself far worse and on a far more regular basis than my father ever did.
No. It was the emotional aspect, the threat, the unpredictability, the slight hint of my father’s enjoyment, satisfaction, and self-righteousness as he struck me.
At the same time, mum would occasionally lightly smack me on the bum or the wrist. It was fine – it didn’t really hurt. But even when my father would hit me just as lightly as mum did, there was a different overtone to it that made it abusive.
So mum’s light smack and the same smack from my father fell into two different categories. The actual ‘force’ of the discipline wasn’t the defining character.
There’s… more to it than the mere act of violence.
Obviously, this kind of ambiguity is going to be difficult to account for in any legislation. I can’t remember who said it, but there’s a suggested principle that for any law we set to catch wrongdoers, we will inevitably catch some we didn’t mean to catch, and miss some we meant to.
So I don’t have a solution on offer here. Just a story to add on the mention of the non-physical components abuse. The non-physical aspects are the important bit – they’re just harder to objectively measure and assess.
August 27th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
getstaffed said: Another [related, relevant] fact is that any parent who has smacked their child for the purpose of correction since the repeal of s.59 is a criminal.
If you have done this I think you should fess up and advise the Police. Unless, of course, you consider your actions to be sufficiently inconsequential that they do not justify prosecution (as the law provides).
In which case, have a happy evening and sleep well, getstaffed.
August 27th, 2009 at 10:24 pm
Kids can’t vote. Nor can young people aged under 16.
Nor should they.
August 27th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
Toad said…
Kids can’t vote. Nor can young people aged under 16.
Can see why? It is obvious. Yep, kids are not yet adults or have fully developed their faculty of reasoning to be able to think independently like adults and cope with the world. That’s why they don’t go to the supermarket on their own , they don’t drive on their own to kindy, they don’t rent flats on their own. Kids can’t survive on their own without adults. They will and must always be under the guidance of (an) adult/s whose faculty of reasoning is already fully developed unless that adult guardian/parent is mentally retarded or his/her mental state is slow like little children, then the law can step in and remove those children under the care of such adult. The term guidance as I used here is to meant the use of occasional smacking, which is how we humans learn when our faculty of reasoning haven’t fully developed (ie, need guidance at this stage). Guidance can come in different forms. You can scream all day in circumstances where the kid won’t pay attention to you regardless how loud you scream. You can do time-out. You can leave them alone unattended/unsupervised so that they can discover the external world on their own (hopefully, that during this unsupervised learning period, they won’t get electrocuted, and the law won’t have to prosecute you for negligence), and blah, blah, blah. So, smacking is one of those tools and it must be made available to the parents and not to be criminalized.
August 27th, 2009 at 10:41 pm
Sorry to taint the site but saw this example of how devious those shits on the left are over at Red Alert. Talking about supporting the bill to select committee to gain support at the expense of Key’s fuck up. I’m getting sick of the lot of these lying bastards.
from jarbury: – Is that even more reason for Labour to vote for the bill though? Knowing that they could do so without actually worrying that it might pass…. you know, justify it on the basis that “88% of people in the referendum seem to indicate they want this issue looked at again, we’re putting our out of touch perception behind us and supporting what the people seem to want.”
August 27th, 2009 at 10:42 pm
Falafulu Fisi said: They will and must always be under the guidance of (an) adult/s whose faculty of reasoning is already fully developed unless that adult guardian/parent is mentally retarded or his/her mental state is slow like little children, then the law can step in and remove those children under the care of such adult.
Sure, guidance for children and young people is necessary, sensible and good.
Whacking them is not.
August 27th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
kaya, jarbury was taking the piss. Surely you can see that.
But Mallard obviously blogged and posted several replies before he had actually read the Bill (or, alternatively, got his instructions from Goff).
So Mallard looked silly. No skin off my nose – I’m Green, so have no reason to defend him. Or Green MPs if they stuff up, for that matter.
August 27th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
Interesting, so toad believes that children who do not wish to be smacked are “dissenting individuals” who’s “rights” need to be protected. But wait, if they should be protected against how the cruel adult majority decides to discipline them, should they also be protected against said majority deciding to cruely restrict certain meat containing pastries in school shops?
August 27th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
What if you’re not “whacking” them, hmmm? Just a light tap? Is that out too?
Despite all their spin, the blanket banning of smacking was always the PSP’s agenda. I love how frogboy merges from that to the “It’s just for assault!” spin so flawlessly. He’s been doing it for so long.
August 27th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
What’s the difference between Whacking a child and smacking ?
August 27th, 2009 at 11:05 pm
Kaya, from a strategic point of view it’s not necessarily a dumb idea for Labour to explore. Personally, I’d be annoyed as hell if they did that.
August 27th, 2009 at 11:15 pm
Toad et al, have their views and of course they are entitiled to them ( and never the twain shall meet). But when it comes to the way good parents choose to bring up their children, then you’re on sacred ground and any attempt by any Government to intervene and remove a good parent’s devine right to smack or, not to smack their children, will ultimately spell the end of any Government. It is simply one bridge too far.
August 27th, 2009 at 11:21 pm
jarbury – as I said above, it’s devious and I am sick of the lying and deceit of politicians in general. The fact you say you don’t approve is very considerate of you, the fact that you still think strategically it is a good idea speaks volumes.
What does it take to get a government “of the people, for the people”? A government that does things because they are the right things to do, not just whatever it takes to achieve power? MP’s who don’t lie, cheat and and spin shit, who don’t go back on their word.
Fuck, I suppose Disneyland could be a start.
August 27th, 2009 at 11:36 pm
What if Labour were to truly say “hey, people really did think we got out of touch, the referendum gave us a huge message, as did last year’s election result, maybe we should support the bill to a select committee to give the people a say?”
Personally I think they should stick to their principles and vote against sending it to a select committee. However, surely you can see they could have legitimate reasons to actually vote for it at first reading.
August 27th, 2009 at 11:52 pm
If you are going to give people a say you have to do it with the provision that you wll actually do something about it when they do speak. Paying lip service alienates people even further.
August 27th, 2009 at 11:55 pm
toad you are a fool, jarbury was not taking the piss, see the above comments.
August 28th, 2009 at 12:04 am
[*] , or your neighbour, teacher, passing busy-body, postie, local cop, friend’s tennis partner, wacked-out Gaia-worshiping Green list MP etc
~~~
No toad, if you’re really honest you and your Green mates are very happy to have perfectly good parents criminialised because it increases state power by driving the social intervention wedge deeper into family life.
You and your mates have re-defined ‘violence’ to suit your ideological ends. You have done nothing to prevent real child abuse and quite probably regard any current abuse as collateral damage in your relentless drive for more control of our lives.
August 28th, 2009 at 12:13 am
That’s right Getstaffed, this issue is the thin edge of the wedge for what ideologues like Bradford would like to do given the chance. There is no reasoning with these people, there is no middle ground and that is the way they want it.
You can not “progress” society in the way they would like to without completely rejecting the status quo, they thrive on the fight and there is no common ground they want cultural revolution and they want to drive it.
August 28th, 2009 at 8:49 am
Hey Shunda, here’s an idea the Greens could support.
Let’s cimininalise breathing (after all it’s noxious C02 we’re expelling, killing the planet with every breath), but have the PM direct the police, MeF etc that only individuals who are involved in activities deemed incompatible with societal progress be prosecuted.
My Greenie neighbour will be able to turn me in for going to church or reading bed-time stories to my kids, while claming that his drugged gay sex and plastic bag re-cycling is helping ‘progress’ our society.. so worth every breath.
August 28th, 2009 at 11:30 am
In a way it is taking the piss, because clearly it’s something Labour aren’t going to do. I was just floating an idea around…