Inconsistency
August 30th, 2009 at 5:27 am by David FarrarHeavyweight boxer David Tua says he is in favour of the anti-smacking legislation remaining intact, saying that such punishment must always be “a final resort only”. …
“Kids are like that too. You don’t retaliate – you take time out, they take time out and you and they think more clearly. Smacking can only be a final, last resort and should never be a regular thing.”
The anti-smacking law does not allow smacking as a last resort. All smacking for correctional purposes is illegal.
Related posts:
- More Section 59 debate
- Why people are oppossed to the smacking ban law
- “child beaters”
- I will be voting No
August 30th, 2009 at 9:09 am
DPF
Thank you for pointing out that it is against the law to smack a child and by extension a parent who smacks breaks the law.
Sadly David Tua is an anti-smacking apologist muddying the waters but not answering the real deal that angers so many people and parents.
Pity the National party are acting with as much integrity as Mr Tua as they bring parliament and the law into disrepute as a result.
Isn’t it a fair expectation for citizens to have a government that doesn’t write law that the government find acceptable for people to break.
This is poor thinking and I’m coming to the conclusion that this is a human rights issue as all citizens have a right to have a government that write proper law for the sake of civil society.
The law is not fit for purpose and by extension so are the enactors.
I suspect that the truth is that the National Party holds the position that the law is acceptable as they consider it unacceptable to smack a child for corrective purposes but don’t want to own up to that.
Vote:August 30th, 2009 at 9:29 am
Perhaps more damaging than ignoring the 87% “No” vote is Key’s line that he can change the law by simply instructing the police and judiciary not to enforce the smacking legislation.
This is banana republic stuff – where the law only means what the politicians of the moment deem it to mean.
At least when he ignores the No vote he only undermines the National Party.
When he dictates how the police and judiciary are to enforce a law he undermines the whole rule of law and legal system. Even Labour didn’t try this on!
Vote:August 30th, 2009 at 9:37 am
I almost like the cheek of the anti-smacking lobby in getting a pugilist to spruik in their favour. It is in keeping with their whole “smacking kids is the same as beating them” line. Of course, they needn’t bother, since the gummint is going to do everything it can to keep the current law, despite what 90% of the population want.
Anyway, finish this sentence … “David Tua is to anti-smacking as *** is to climate change.” If you answered Keisha Castle-Hughes, or Lucy Lawless, or Robyn Malcolm, give yourself a chocolate fish. In one case, a *celebrity* with little or no understanding of the “problem space” spouts a lot of shit in the newspaper, and in the other, a *celebrity* with little or no understanding of the “problem space” spouts a lot of shit in the newspaper.
O for awesome!
Vote:August 30th, 2009 at 10:49 am
Whatever your stance on the issue of smacking, isn’t it ironic that a man who makes his living trying to punch people senseless is the new poster-child for the anti-smacking movement? O for Awesome David
Vote:August 30th, 2009 at 11:07 am
Thinking and David Tua would naturally be an oxymoron wouldn’t it.? More of the moron I’d say. The term “thick as two planks” comes to mind.
Vote:August 30th, 2009 at 11:27 am
Inventory2 there is a difference, Tua smacks people his own size, too many in NZ seem to be using the mindset that my children are my property.
I do mind it strange, why the overwhelming desire by some to want to smack children ?
Vote:August 30th, 2009 at 11:38 am
Find the YouTube video – I’m pretty sure you’ll find it was “O for Olsen*”.
*Olsen Filipaina – Rugby League player, friend of David Tua’s.
Vote:August 30th, 2009 at 11:46 am
“I do mind it strange, why the overwhelming desire by some to want to smack children ?”
There isn’t, grumpy.
There is however an overwhelming desire to keep instrusive state agencies (CYFS and police) out of an intimate area of family life (determining how to raise our own children).
That is the issue, and always has been.
Furthermore, the fact that an occasional bad parent got away with something they should not have, was NOT a justification for applying this intrusion to every single family in NZ.
Vote:August 30th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Section 59 didn’t allow parents to beat their kids for getting punched in the noggan either.
Vote:August 30th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Oh and grumpy, you just don’t get it do you? This isn’t about smacking children it’s about the state going too far and intruding into the homes of ordinary New Zealanders. If you think the 90odd% “no” vote was entirely made up of people who smack or will smack their children you’re a fool. I have had dozens of people say that they voted no not because they intended to smack their children but because they did not want the government telling them how to raise their children.
Vote:August 30th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
F_RKLIFT
Ummm, can i buy a vowel?
Certainly.
Can i get a P?
Vote:August 30th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
I find it amazing that anyone, anywhere considers the opinion of a Samoan American of no significance worth reporting.
Vote:August 30th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Graeme
You might be right.
Have a look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaIZF8uUTtk
It does sound like O for Olsen.
Although he was of course supposed to be spinning for a consonant.
Vote:August 30th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Here’s another clue, David (Tua, not Farrar).
STF_
Wanna buy a vowel?
Vote:August 30th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
grumpyoldhori said “too many in NZ seem to be using the mindset that my children are my property.”
NO no no no no no no no no no no!
My child is MY RESPONSIBILITY, not yours, not Hullin’s, not Soo’s and sure as shit not John’s
And that responsibility is TO my child, not you, not Hullin, not Soo and John can get fucked if he thinks I’m voting for him again.
Vote:August 30th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Tracy Watkins on stuff (and in the Dom Post, I think):
http://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/columnists/2814631/National-risks-running-smack-bang-into-trouble
Vote:August 30th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Firstly, allow me to say that as a Pacific Islander and a fellow American Samoan I was deeply disappointed to read that David Tua has come out “fighting” for the Anti-smacking campaign.
It is such a big shame that Mr Tua has based this decision on the notion that “smacking is only an acceptable parental tool as a final resort” when the current law doesn’t even allow for this. I know that most Polynesians are in a sense conservative in their approach to such Social issues but often there is a huge lack of understanding and information when it comes to choosing camps.
From the beginning I have opposed the amendment to section 59 and I will continue to do so as it best represents me and the family I advocate for – my parents never used smacking as the first resort and often repeated instructions several times before resorting to a reasonable smack – the smack came after a little appeasement as an attempt to break down the miss behavior.
The facts of the matter here are simple – John Key would rather drag this issue on longer (despite a majority call to change the law) in a pathetic attempt for the flames to eventually die down over time. He knows that the UN is watching his every move and any backtrack on the law will make him look like a fool internationally. New Zealand knows this and should refuse to back down – we voted and he refused to buckle. John Key agreed to meet Keisher Castle Hughes on Climate Change recently (after controversy) but calls for a meeting with the leader of the Vote No campaign were turned down immediately by staff members.
Sue Bradford is now receiving death threats and her safety is being undermined – although I don’t condone this in any way I must say that such action is expected when the people of New Zealand are consistently being set aside in favour of a certificate of good work from the United Nations as a leading “example” for the Western world. A deliberate attack on the social structure of the NZ nuclear family should not be tolerated without proportionate public consultation. Violence may not be the way to achieve this, but through consistent cyber protesting on blogs and via emails, through consistent letters to the editor (of all major papers) and through consistent public discussion around this I confidently believe that sooner or later John Key will be out-powered and out-gunned by the majority.
I commend ACT for being the only party in caucus to challenge the parliamentary majority in favour of the law remaining unchanged despite calls for more public intervention and consultation…
Vote: